Age of innocence/Sky is dirty, self-portrait using tripod and timer, 2001
To imagine, how do we do it and what happens in visual deserts we inhabit to imagination? It is a buzzword, imagine with lots of positive vibes and commercial potential, holding massive value and the word imagine is used to engage to think for yourself in worst cases when there is visually nothing much of interest, which word imagination itself is a blank to be filled or something full to be found. Artworks that are said to be about nothing, of nothingness, we look at them and are told to imagine or is it such an emotional event to gaze art that rationally thinking is misguided? Do we need instructions on how to see art, what to think? Sometimes we need to be told something is art, curiously. Everybody does it their own way, some are not bothered with such nonsense as conceptual art. What do we imagine if the thing is nothing and its catch is the emptiness, whiteness, the place where it is at and the conceptual nature of the work wouldn’t possibly work anywhere else than within the art world frame and how it is managed in the commercially set frame? What do we imagine inside the white cube, in the city centre built of glass and chrome, slick, visit-and-go environment where we come by things that are called art and are placed art-like? How do we use our imagination today and what does it mean when we are in context of contemporary art ‘to be inspired’ or instructed to use our imagination? Is the art world using its imagination and all the possibilities art can offer fully, because I’m not so sure: too many people are scared of the new, stepping over boundaries, rules and the social media mobs. Especially today it is getting strange what gets accepted and is offence the thing to avoid at any cost? Winnings and earnings lost mean losing one’s job.
What if imagination stops working and mind is just blank in that particular moment? People have various degrees of capabilities what comes to imagination which is in test daily and why should conceptual art make anyone imagine anything? Does advertising, entertainment and built environment do the imagining for us and we have become lazy to imagine for ourselves? Is our environment and art today so ripped of from details that it is hollow and empty and it relies on us to create the content ourselves, the meaning and what should we do about this choreographed world with geometrical shapes that echo style and trends? It is all to make one think, everything is to make one think but it is also to make everything easier. The frame where we move is the structure given and is like a guide or a map to an idea of what to think and how to move. We pay attention to the price of art and houses, that draws the headlines, not what there is to imagine. I try to think the words imagine and imagination in today’s world. We are constantly inspired or entertained and content or nothing of the sort. Anxious and tense is what we are. Enjoyment is the aim, one can have an attempt at thinking, why are we doing what we do, are we made just to think or just to feel powerless and poor? What am I in comparison to this conceptual art? What is this rectangle shape to me, something to stand in?
Imagining is a difficult thing in many ways. It needs practice, but we do it all the time in terms of visualisation and thinking of what everything is and means adding contents in our minds to the seen to comprehend and continue the thought. To measure it what is seen and experienced, imagined or fed, just to describe what one imagines waking up in the morning or walking by an artwork, results are maybe expected, all the same everyday? What do we notice in the end or pay attention to? Try to describe in some way your thoughts on paper and in a way that it is understandable to others as well or maybe it is interesting that art is not immediately easily comprehensible which frustrates many, not adding explanations may do it, probably will. That is great practice and using of one’s brain with hand and a pen or whatever, which conceptual art attempts to do, activate our intellect, see connections if there are any. We do live in the middle of concepts, defining anything is equally as hard as trying to draw anything. Always some detail is left out, forgotten and added, tried again and so on. Try defining an art piece or describing it or a house or the situation the world is in right now. It was a mess 2001.
What if they say no? Aalto-yliopisto lähtee mukaan yrityksen leimaamista vastaan 2020, vielä kerran, hiiop!! Miten järkevää on ollut yhdistää kauppakorkeakoulu ja taidekoulu, muuten? Just asking.. Kiitos Aalto-yliopisto, hauskaa, että taide on teille näin tärkeä, tyrsk.
Mitä tekee brändiuskollisuus, -uskovaisuus, -lojaalius, -luottamus, sokea sellainen, että suurten taideinsinöörien palvonta, taidejättiläisten palvonta ja ajattelu, että tämä yhtälö tuottaa jotakin mahtavaa ja hienoa aina, yhtenä jatkumona, että koko ja taideuskonto ovat jotakin, mitkä tekevät vaikutuksen ja on hyvää, hyväätekevä, parantavaa ja ajatuksiaherättävä, tärkeitä ajatuksia, suuria ajatuksia ja tunteita, elämyksiä. Hälytyskellojen tulee soida rankasti, kun ajattelemme brändejä ja kuinka luotamme niihin, koska luottamus on luja ja yritys ei ole läpinäkyvä, etenkään taide ei ole. Olemme vaikutuksen alaisia, meitä manipuloidaan olemaan vaikuttuneita ja vakuuttuneita, ja kaikki tämä suuruus tekee Suomessa vaikutuksen, vaikkei ole syytä ja pieni on aina väärässä ja huonompi, koska on pieni ja haluaa suureksi. Kuuluisuus ja maine ja mitä niiden pitäisi kertoa osaamisesta? Tällä kertaa ne kertovat sellaisesta paikalleen jämähtämisestä, että jäämme katsomaan, miten kauan tällainen järjestelmä ja ajatusmalli pystyy toimimaan uskottavasti, kuka sitä rahoittaa, mihin sillä pyritään ja miksi siitä näin hanakasti halutaan pitää kiinni jopa yliopistossa, ja ehkä siksi juuri siellä…
https://www.hs.fi/kaupunki/art-2000006804375.html ”Ulkomaisen toimijan tulo uuteen maahan voi saada paljon positiivista huomiota, tai sitten siihen voi kohdistua huomattavia ennakkoluuloja”, kertoo yhtenä tutkimuksen vetäjistä toiminut Aalto-yliopiston apulaisprofessori Tiina Ritvala. Artikkeli, jonka Aalto-yliopiston tutkijaryhmä julkaisi nimellä A processual view of organizational stigmatization in foreign market entry: The failure of Guggenheim Helsinki, julkaistu lehdessä Journal of International Business Studies 2020, lähtee otsikkoa myöten johtotähtenä etsimään pääasiallista syytä, miksi Suomi ja suomalaiset vieroksuivat kuuluisaa brändiä ja heidän mahtavaa kokoelmaansa, leimaamisesta eli stigmatisoinnista eli Guggenheim on tässä uhrin asemassa.
I suppose that it [rejection of the Guggenheim Foundation’s entry in Helsinki] was a reaction to a sense of engulfing internationalism, or a reaction against globalism. That’s how I’m explaining it to myself.
—Richard Armstrong, Director of the Guggenheim Foundation
Myös Richard Armstrong selittää itselleen ja meille muille, että Suomi ja suomalaiset ovat globalisaatiota ja internationalismia vastaan. Katsotaan kuinka sosialistiliitto määrittelee nationalismin ja internationalismin: http://www.sosialistiliitto.org/arkistot/22 “Nationalismi, kansallisuusaate, on kapitalismin tuote. Se on kapitalistien tärkeimpiä keinoja saada työläiset sidotuksi kapitalistiseen järjestelmään. Siksi sosialistit vastustavat nationalismia. Sen sijaan sosialistit ovat internationalisteja.” Sosialistit sanovat nationalismin olevan kapitalismin tuote eli Suomen Guggenheim-päätös on ollut oikeanlainen, koska toimimme (ainakin teoriassa) kapitalismissa ja sen sääntöjen mukaan, emme sosialismissa ja yritykset joko kaatuvat tai kukoistavat ja siitä on turha syyttää kuluttajia. Sosialismi on kiinnostava ilmiö neoliberalismin/uusliberalismin seassa “Uusliberalismi on 1940-luvulla syntynyt talouspoliittinen suuntaus,[1][2] jonka mukaan yksityinen omistusoikeus, vapaat markkinat ja vapaakauppa edistävät parhaiten ihmisten hyvinvointia.[1] Uusliberalismi on markkinoiden valtaa ja sääntelemättömyyden ihannetta. Uusliberalismissa politiikka ei saa ohjata yhteiskuntaa.[3]“https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uusliberalismi ja yhteiskunnan varallisuuden hyväksikäytön kannalta katsottuna eli kuinka suuret toimijat katsovat oikeudekseen hyväksikäyttää/pyytää verovaroja, maa-aluetta, käyttää markkinajohtajuutta ja markkina-etua ja olla sääntelemättömiä, ottamatta kritiikkiä vastaan, markkina-etuja isolla toimijalla kuten Guggenheim on. Taiteessa näitä etuja käytetään siekailematta pienen ryhmän hyödyksi, sanotaan, että tämä on meidän (Suomen) etu ja uhriutua, kun käytössä oleva taktiikka ei kaikille käy. Kertoo kulttuurista, jossa toimijan ehdotuksesta ei saa kieltäytyä ja näihin asiantuntijoihin on luotettava. On kiinnostavaa, kuinka Business School Aalto-yliopisto lähtee tukemaan sosialistisia käytäntöjä eli Suomen valtion ja Helsingin kaupungin olisi pitänyt ilman kritiikkiä tukea taloudellisesti miljoonilla suurta ja tunnettua ulkomaista brändiä ja yritystä, myös antamalla käyttöön paraatipaikka Helsingin keskustassa, ja koska näin ei käynyt, kuten pyydettiin (melkein kuin käskemällä), syntyy uhriutuminen eli pieni toimija ei voi sanoa ei, ilman syyllistämistä, ja Suomen tulisi olla tyytyväinen, että meistä ollaan näin kiinnostuneita ja maksaa silkkaa rahaa tästä kiinnostuksesta ja onnesta, muuten olemme takaperoisia antisemitistejä ja muuta inhottavaa, hyi.
Guggenheim puhui haluavansa olevan beacon eli majakka Suomelle: miksi museo/ulkomainen yritys haluaa olla beacon Suomelle ja millainen majakka/yritys Guggenheim on? Millaista yrittäjyyttä ja hyvinvointikauppaa nykytaide on ja mihin taiteella pyritään nykymaailmassa muuhun kuin vaikuttavuuteen, vallankäyttöön ja massiivisuuteen. Kun toimimme taidebisneksessä yritysmaailmassa, yrittäjinä, yrittäjyyden ehdoilla sekoittaen sosialismia ja uusliberalismia kuvitellen toimivamme kapitalismissa, ilmeisesti taiteen ehdoilla ja tehden että tuottaen yhteiskunnalle tärkeää sisältöä, mutta myös taidemarkkinoiden ehdoilla (jotka ovat?) eli sanelupolitiikkalla ja asiantuntijadiktatuurilla, niin on hyvä pysähtyä miettimään, mistä arvoista ja kenen edusta mitäkin tehdään ja milloinkin puhutaan, vai onko sanelupolitiikka jo mennyttä maailmaa taiteen osalta, kuten Suomen päätös kertoo? On paljon toimijoita, jotka tietävät omasta mielestään, mikä on Suomen ja suomalaisten etu ja he haluavat sanella, mikä on kiinnostavaa ja hyödyllistä. Kuka taiteessa ja politiikassa sanelee mitäkin ja miksi kuluttajan pitäisi uskoa sanelua siitä, mikä on hyvää ja tarpeellista taidetta/politiikkaa ja mikä kaupantekoa ja hyväksikäyttöä? Miksi taide on hyödyksi yrityksille ja miksi juuri Guggenheim herätti paikallisten yritysten kiinnostuksen taiteeseen? Onko taide luopumassa itsenäisyydestään ja tuotteistunut täysin, antautunut markkinoiden ja kuuluisuuskulttuurin vietäväksi niin, ettei taiteilijalla ole muuta vaihtoehtoa kuin tehdä sitä, mikä myy, saa katsojia ja toivoa huomiota, koska taide elää huomiosta? Vai kuoleeko se siihen, kuten moni taidemessu kovasti yrittää. https://www.hs.fi/kulttuuri/art-2000002833401.html. http://leostranius.fi/2015/06/guggenheim-helsinki-kylla-vai-ei/ Kiinnostavasti Euroopan vanhimmat kaupungit vetävät yhä enemmän matkailijoita, joten voimmeko vetää johtopäätöksiä, mikä ihmisiä vetää puoleensa?
Miksi meidän pitäisi ottaa yrityksen puhe todesta ja olla onnellisia tästä huomiosta? Millaisessa yritysten kuplassa elämme, kun huomio, jonka Suomi osakseen saa, tulee yrityksiltä ja heidän arvonsa ovat ne, joihin meidän on pyrittävä, ne uskottava ja että yrityksistä on ainoastaan hyötyä meille? Kiinnostavin kysymys on, miten tällaiset toimijat ottavat kritiikin vastaan, muuttavat toimintatapojaan, miten he huomaavat omat virheensä vai tekevätkö he virheitä lainkaan, painetaanko ne villaisella ja miksi? Se, millaista valtaa Guggenheim yrityksenä käyttää taidejärjestelmässä, milllaista etua se luo tietyille tahoille, pienille piireille, ja kenelle näin isoista toimijoista on haittaa, olisi pitänyt ottaa tarkempaan selvittelyyn, koska markkinaetu ja markkinan hyväksikäyttö ovat asioita, joista ei taiteessa puhuta, niitä pidetään itsestäänselvyyksinä ja oikeuksina eli hyväksikäyttö on sallittua, kun on tarpeeksi suuri ja saanut jalansijan taidejärjestelmässä eli maineen laadun tuottajana ja taidevaikuttajana.
Pelkästään se, että Guggenheimin johtaja ei vastaa häntä häiritseviin kysymyksiin ja kävelee tv-haastattelusta pois, kertoo paljon sanelupolitiikasta ja ajattelusta, ettei meillä pitäisi olla sananvaltaa tai sijaa kyselyille, vaan rahavirta valtiolta ja kaupungilta pitäisi olla läpihuutojuttu ja kaupallinen museo on ainoastaan hyvä asia kaikille. Taide on kinkkinen systeemi ja ajatusmalli, kun tarkastellaan, miten valtaa käytetään, kuka valtaa käyttää, mitä raha tarkoittaa ja tekee taiteessa, mistä raha tulee eritoten, millainen kenttä poliittisesti taide on, mikä näkyy, näytetään tai ei näy, kuka tekee rahaa taiteessa ja miksi. Raha näyttelee pääosaa aina. Taide, kuten Guggenheim todistaa, toimii kuten eläisimme sosialismissa, mutta erittäin ankarassa neoliberalistisessa kilpailussa, jossa arvon luovat koulut, raha, suhteet, media ja museot sekä käytännöt, jotka eivät muutu systeemissä, jota ei säädellä, koska se on asiantuntijavalta, joka tietää, miten asiat tehdään ja taide tekee hyvää, tietäen mikä on hyvää taidetta (siinä on leima). Guggenheim päätyi siis poliittiseksi peliksi, koska heidän toimintansa on franchise-tyyppinen kansainvälisesti eli kaupunki/maa sitoutuu maksamaan Guggenheimille heidän kokoelmastaan ja kaupunki saa rakennuttaa velkarahalla museon ja käyttää nimeä matkailijoiden houkuttelemiseksi Helsinkiin, mikä on Guggenheimin suurin tavoite, massat, näkyvyys, näyttävyys ja koko. Omituinen sekoitus sosialismia, jotakin vanhaa ja muuttumatonta, kuviteltua ja haluttua massiivista kasvua, jota pidetään edistyksenä ja uusiutuvana/uutena yhä uudestaan ja riistokapitalismia, jossa museo sanelee ehdot, koska he ovat omasta mielestään niin suuri osaava toimija, pomminvarma menestys (mitä se ei ole ollut monessa muussa kaupungissakaan), ettei kenenkään pitäisi napista saati kritisoida tätä toimintaa ja mallia ja suomalaiset tutkijat edelleen puhuvat leimaamisesta jo otsikossa?
Kun yritys ‘leimataan’, se tarkoittaa, että kritiikillä ei ole pohjaa, puhutaan mustamaalaamisesta ja toiminnan estämisestä. Kieltäytyminen on siis väärä että huono päätös. Leimaaminen eli kritiikki on ainoastaan paha asia yritystoiminnan kannalta ja vahingoittaa ennen kaikkea Suomen ja Helsingin mainetta, koska olemme toimineet väärin tätä hienoa yritystä kohtaan ja meidän olisi pitänyt kohdella heitä kuin kuninkaallisia, koska he ihailivat meitä. Suomi on hieno maa, haluamme tulla tekemään maastanne suuren turistikohteen taiteen avulla, josta pääsemme toiseen kritiikinaiheeseen eli massaturismiin, joka taiteensysteemissä on ainoastaan hyvä asia, eikä ongelma kenellekään joka matkustaa biennaalista toiseen.
Mitä taiteilija ajattelee turismista ja että taide valjastetaan globaalisti massaturismille? Moni Euroopan kaupunki on jo kuin ulkoilmamuseo ja turistit aiheuttavat enemmän haittaa kuin hyötyä, etenkin luonnolle turismi on selvä haitta ja vanhoille kaupungeille rasite, jonka näkee Venetsiassa, kun risteilyalus lipuu kaupunkiin. “Tänä kesänä Helsinkiin saapuu noin 300 kansainvälistä risteilijää tuoden mukanaan noin 360 000 matkailijaa. Vain osa risteilijöistä jättää likavetensä satamaan, kun taas Itämerellä liikkuvista matkustajalaivoista niin tekevät kaikki.” https://wwf.fi/wwf-lehti/pandan-polku-2-2011/laivojen-jatevedet-mereen-vai-viemariin/ Turismin aiheuttama jäteongelma on Välimerellä iso. https://wwf.fi/tiedotteet/2018/06/wwfn-raportti-valimeri-muuttumassa-vaaralliseksi-muovimereksi-suurena-syyna-turismi-ja-heikko-jatteidenkasittely/ “Muoviroskat ja mikromuovi uhkaavat muuttaa Välimeren valtavaksi muovimereksi, selviää WWF:n tänään julkaistusta raportista. Muovi uhkaa meriluonnon ja merenelävien lisäksi myös ihmisten terveyttä. Suurimmat syyt Välimeren muoviongelmiin ovat massaturismi, heikko jätteidenkäsittely ja liiallinen muovinkäyttö.” Näitä ongelmia ei tullut esiin puhuttaessa Guggenheimista mediassa, ne ovat aiheita taiteilijoille, eivät systeemille, koska se joutuisi ison olemassaolo-ja muutospyörityksen keskelle ja kyseenalaistamaan toimintamallinsa totaalisesti. Taidesysteemi hyödyntää taiteen ja taitelijoiden arvon luomalla rahallisen arvon, houkuttelee katsojia ja pyörittää asiantuntijavetoista systeemiä, jota ei saa siis kyseenalaistaa, koska taide on meitä varten ja hyvän puolella pahaa vastaan. Se on olemassaolevan järjestelmän tärkein tehtävä, pyörittää vuodesta toiseen taiteilijoita kommentoimassa polttavia aiheita ja ihmiset maksamassa tästä huvista, tähtikultti, joka vetoaa taiteenrakastajiin ylevöittäen asiantuntijat ja katsojansa.
WOW-arkkitehtuuri on Guggenheim-brändin tavaramerkki, joka myös epäonnistui tuottamaan minkäänlaista WOW:ta. Arkkitehtuurikilpailun voittaja mukaili suomalaista makua. Se oli pliisu, arkinen, tylsä, virastomainen, mitäänsanomaton, tarkoitettu istumaan suomalaiseen nykykaupunkimaisemaan eli missä se WOW oli ja mitä uutta ajattelua/arkkitehtoonista lisää tämä rakennus olisi tuonut Helsingin ja Suomen museokenttään? Guggenheim puhui kehityksestä (progress), jota he edustavat, museo aktivoi käyttäjänsä ja puhuttiin pedagogiasta. Millaista oppia tämä projekti on antanut museokentälle, Aalto-yliopistolle, taidekentälle, taidekaupalle ja ajatukselle, miksi nykytaidetta/modernia taidetta tehdään ja tullaan katsomaan? Millaisesta ajattelusta kertoo, että valtio on yritykselle lypsylehmä?
Kannattaa muistaa, kun palkkaa kalliin konsulttitoimiston kirjoittamaan opuksen massaturismin puolesta museolle ja kaupungille englanniksi, kuka sen lukee, kenelle se on tarkoitettu ja mikä on käyttäjän osa, vaikka sen, joka ei puhu englantia ja asuu Suomessa ja ennenkaikkea, kuka tämän pelleilyn maksaa.
What is appropriate art, what should art be like and who is to decide? Who is the critic and what is the quality of criticism are to be questioned, as when all opinions must be voiced and are, who are listened to and what is said? The nipple (that must be freed?), breasts (nowadays breast are very commonly out, except the nipple), vaginas, asses (that are out as well), penises, fat are common in fine art to see, but they do cause moral outrage especially in fine art, probably even more when photographed and when the artist does it herself of herself questioning the sexism in the arts especially. Museums and galleries are becoming more family friendly places to visit to lure visitors and in the process art shown must be family friendly too? What family friendliness in this context means, censoring, teaching and moralising? What does art teach, what is the visitor to learn from art or about art? What kind of place does pedagogy have in art and showing art and should it as for example Guggenheim proposed to be the case in Finland 2016, when it was selling its franchise product for us, to have pedagogical spaces for kids in a commercial museum? How pedagogical can a commercial museum be and what kind of pedagogy does the art world provide? Does the art world learn here or does it take the place of a supreme teacher? Pedagogy provided in cynicism, marketing, painting, becoming famous or what is beauty?
What does family friendliness mean in today’s world, in the art world, in art, in marketing and why be family friendly other than making a buck, just be ever so nice and listen to Jingle Bells? Does it mean more gift shops, snacks and pop-ups, fast-food, fast art, naivety, shopping, blocking unwanted influences and opinions and spending time kind of existing and creating of a place of culture, where one can become cultured, more commercial places for consumerism, where we can also sell ourselves? More is beautiful and more lucrative and more popular is good? Is there a trend to make art family friendly to consume as much as possible photographing oneself and be seen in and what is that art like there? Glittering, shining and ultra-positive? What does it mean to make art family friendly for art as a whole, for places of art and for the artist? Thinking, what is friendliness in this context? Artist should manipulate her art to not disturb and not create awkwardness as women should manipulate themselves to please the eye? Weird is scary and horror is not art? Is the artist family friendly as a profession? Hearing that there should be warning labels for fine art on websites and in places of art for not to scare children/adults and not cause trauma, offence, uncomfortable feelings is for me as an artist a flag and creates a pressure for need to appeal and gratify. I don’t make art to please, for pure enjoyment and entertainment. I do not include likings in what I do. It is as a thought against art to aim to please and collect like stamps. Wanting to create places of art as places of visual candy stores surely works as people like glitter and images of fantasy. If you want to be bored by art and not be provoked a thought, it is your choice, but don’t claim all art must be eye candy.
Question is what does a visitor want from places of art and is it important to pay attention to and to what extent? What is the visitor for the art establishment other than a consumer and what is art for the art establishment and for the visitor? People wish to be entertained, be surprised, be in the presence of greatness, fame, names, skill, be in awe, but all this in the good sense of leaving the place in some kind of having seen is something what tourists do. To be in wonderment of it all is what I hope. Do people want to be safe in places of art, safe from the visual that may attack them in some way? What is a visual attack in real life? Is that a threat as such and in what way? Pictures do hunt us and stay in our minds, what do they do and how do images impact our thinking and feelings is something we must be afraid of and alert? There is a division there between places of art and the normal place of living and looking where art may be placed or not, usually not. We can avoid art totally, but should we? We may live without seeing and being in touch of art, which is part of the problem of why art exists more commercial and must be made in different ways and why art is seen as weird and hostile. Is art hostile and how, if so? And what is the hostile part? What is artist’s job in today’s world? Where is art?
Hello cocksuckers! Be an ideal blow job boy or a girl, a mouth and a face to perform the uncivilized act of blowing. Cultural significance of sucking cock, the act, what is it? The loving it, the hate, the contempt, the kneeling, opening of a zipper, massaging the testicles and thighs, the need for power, the enslavement, the mouth, the giving head. Shall we remove any hint of civilisation? It is getting hot in here, isn’t it. To blow is an act of culture. It is to serve. Strangely culture is civilisation. Hints of civilisation can be removed by taking off clothes, your silks. Place them on furniture so that it is romantic. There is a dim light in the room. Get nude. Go on your knees and on all your fours. Suck your thumb, suck the toe, lick the foot. Try it out. You first and everybody simultaneously fuck. Personally, trying it out and not expecting someone to do it voluntarily on her own.
What she deserves? It is true, I have a condition and it is called Fuck you. Dye yourself blonde, dye your hair blonde, change yourself completely is the message. It equals beauty. Be skinny and fit, it equals to what? Torture? What is it? Essentials to being beautiful is to be less and not aggressive, agreeable to a point you can’t say anything back, be nice so that you do not disturb and it is what it means to be a woman and behaving like one. How to be pleasant wearing Crazy Love the fragrance is a tightrope and you are under looking glass. The flaw is in you.
Beauty is subjective. It is when you are able to do what you want and be free? To stick penis into her mouth and make her choke, make her throw up as she should, die as she should, killed by penis in her mouth, mouth like a sewer. Beauty is in the image and you are not it. That is discussed, being disgusted by her feeling empowered by herself and taking that feeling away it is the right thing to do, she does not deserve to feel powerful.
My question rises from the strange continuous experience of hearing there are leftist professors who practice leftist ideology in universities and leftist theories are taught more than the conservative ones and that leftist politics is in use in universities. My experience does not back this claim: when system favours conservative mannerisms and silence, I am too radical and annoying, leftism is a lovely flower to look at, if you know what I mean. Marx obviously being one of the most interesting theorists there is what comes to labour rights, so it is only just and right that his theories are known to avoid situation which is present today, where him and his thinking is painted completely malaise, destructive, false and inaccurate. Propaganda is hurtful, disinformation, not trying to understand how better the living and working conditions of the working class. It is more than understandable to learn to know how theory has affected our culture and thinking especially through economics, which is fascinating. How the division is made between the two, left and right, often seems to happen by what and whom is assumed is leftist and heard to be leftist or thinks is leftist. What comes to being conservative, do your clothes tell as it is often times assumed by clothing to which camp you belong?
Art is thought to be occupied by leftists and feminists who look forward, are experimental, openminded and are open to ideas and new people, which strikes me as I should be popular in such an environment. I argue and question too much to be likeable and that is something to me which is characteristic to being politically and intellectually aware and functioning. Such questioning types are met with anger and critique is rendered as annoying complaining. To not question the education system in use, methods, theories etc. is not leftist, it is accepting the current situation of higher education, protecting careers and positions, which to me seemed to be more important than the quality of education provided. It is difficult to be the person who doesn’t go with the flow and like everything, put one’s own financial interests first as is common in the arts and think of people: what a good contact or whom to avoid. All these accusations of leftism ring odd as there is a true and wide gap there between the working class and the middle class and as all know it is still today not that common for someone from working class to enter university or the arts. My family still has hard time accepting my profession which to them is not a profession: how do you make money, your art is not art etc. There is a huge difference between the working class people and people from the middle class and for people not to think it is odd is odd and someone with working class background such as me, I am odd everywhere, because what is art and there are lot of people who have never met an artist and don’t even want to. This goes on and on. What has middle class contributed to leftism other than theory? Sympathy for the cleaning ladies and welders? That’s funny.
When I go to the environment where I as an artist am supposed to work at, it is not news I do not feel comfortable, welcomed, fit in etc. It is a strange situation and place, which conflict has led me do art that critiques the places of art, education of art, profession of the artist and I write about the paradoxes and clear flaws, intellectual and structural, there are in this field. Situation is stagnant and people like to follow the good old routes to success. Kissing ass? All the beautiful talks and looking like leftists, I am sure you are a very likeable person and will get lots of opportunities…why the working class people avoid and have disinterest towards contemporary art and distrust towards people with higher education? How many working class people do you know Mrs./Mister leftist professor and what are your leftist thoughts on how higher education could be valuable in other ways than just landing a high paying job? What I have witnessed is a mutual contempt and ignorance. For example telling what kind of professions I have done for a living, it is as if I had fell from outer space, poor you, or why don’t you apply for grants. Grants being, taught in university, the number one source of income for an artist, which also sounds very middle class. Are you sure it is good for the art and where does the money come from, who supports the arts the most? How to monetise art has not been ever an issue at any art school only in passing, maybe that is the leftist angle. It is a difficult thing to do, monetise one’s art, when most of the energy goes to realising newly invented ideas that hang in the air and mean nothing to anybody and to me they mean everything. How to monetise something that is your all? It takes character.
It is a fairytale kind of spectacle or anti-spectacle in a spectacle, if that is a thing. Anti-spectacle in the sense of changing of the perspective towards gender, class, work and art, romantic is the spectacle, a pattern we expect. The spectacle we are used to seeing and thinking in terms of movies and in general how class, work, gender and art function and are, are thought to represent and be like. The American dream in this case where a beautiful young woman reaches out for her dream, a place in the sun and ends up getting more or ‘all’, a romantic relationship with a Man with a Porsche, who is also the owner of the factory where Alexandra, the woman in question, works at as a welder. One big plus of the movie is it does not highlight the work Alexandra does, welding is just work with men as co-workers, it makes the movie hugely more interesting though, and her the one who lives outside the box and is allowed to do so. She is not harassed by her co-workers, her abilities are not questioned. It is truly a beautiful setting, which her choice of work, most definitely would be seen weird still today.
To explore deeper into what the movie is all about is worth our while as it has been deeply overlooked as many romantic movies that are meant for women usually are. To pay attention to details, characters, camera shots, what is being looked at and told via tensions between women and men and why those tensions exist. What happens between the sexes, between women especially, what are sexes both expected to do, look and be like. Movie is a language as is dance as is sex, sexuality, clothing and gender. You have to focus on to read it all and actually think what are we looking at, what happens there and why all the time. It is not just an entertaining show where you can relax and forget what is going on, this is told via contrasts between sleazy bars, working men and art, how women are treated in different settings and how these settings differ, how women want to be treated and what do they desire of their lives to be. Movie is never just a movie that is meant to entertain, not even those that are made for that purpose, nor is music or the dance acts that seem to be out of place. Point is easily missed when the romantic is what stays interesting and in the focus.
In a bar where ambitious fit and talented dancers show their art, act for paying customers who are watching and are a bit amazed by the unexpected shows. Contrast is also to the other bar where dancing is not the primary interest of anyone, only nude female bodies, that move in a certain way. Women are dancing for money but in a show-your-ass-kind of way, but they still want to be discovered and dream of making it. What are people watching and why, who gets attention? Watching happens for instant gratification, simplicity of getting pleasure cheap and for fun. A bar is a world of something else than the workplace and not a place of thought, burdening oneself. Customers of the bar are not the assumed ordinary art lovers, but that is the point. Why should people be provoked to think more than is necessary, why not give them what they want? To whom is art for and why is it a class issue? What is art and where is art, who is capable of art and why it is a special occasion in a special place? High and low seem to be repulsed by each other, classes stay separated like oil and water. The dance acts, art and artists, are really in the right place. Intention of the movie is not to depict a straightforward story in a manner of this is what happens: this is what we dream of happening to us. It is not a children’s story and it is not pink. It seems light, but is heavier when one starts exploring. That are the expectations and frame women are supposed to fit in, want, act upon and are shown in the movie, that those who dare, can change the game. There is social critique hidden there to be found.
To say Flashdance is a feminist movie is not quite what a true movie lover might expect. What do you think about the turn, that a seemingly light Hollywood movie is feminist in a very kick-ass way and about the structural difficult issue of choosing how to get ahead in life, on one’s own terms and talent, and not sleeping with the boss or buddy who has connections. What do you think about when after having seen and evaluated for example the scene where Alexandra goes and finds her friend who has gone to work as a stripper, moving herself in conventional stripper manner, she is grabbed off the stage by Alexandra and escorted out. In the scene Alexandra’s clothing and standing position compared to her friend tell a lot when friend the stripper ends up in a puddle on street wearing only panties and high heels and is cold. Money, she earned gets wet in the rain on the pavement. Alexandra’s loose pants and sneakers when she stands firmly behind the naked woman who has fallen down and sold her body for money to please men may seem easy and naive, but it is something very basic, a woman on the ground beaten down feeling there is no other opportunity for her.
After having read couple of critiques about the movie and clearly many have missed the point: When one is an art critic it is essential to see behind the expected, the image and be free of bias. What is the seen image telling us, what happens without words, what is the setting and who are the characters, what do they do. Do you need more clues, because explaining has to be done also in a very basic manner, obviously also for critics. When you are an art critic, don’t fall for the simple clichés. Such poor analysis destroys a lot, as does arrogance, assumptions and cynicism. Minimizing culture that is aimed at and is about women and girls is a normal practice. It is a learned reaction which comes without thinking. A black woman eating a banana in a scene where women talk about relationships, well sounds as cliché as anything, but it happens in couple of seconds, and is easily missed, but telling. To make it as you with your raw capabilities, without handouts and favours..
Flashdance, is a feminist movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashdance in which woman does work as a welder and pursues her dream to become a professional dancer, also in which women help each other, face sexual harassment and deal with it by acting out, consequences lurking there and threat of violence is almost a certainty. To oppose men means you have to be one and be prepared. Movie portrays different kinds of female roles, a gallery of different kinds of women. The expectations of what women should be like, playing with stereotypes with which women struggle and hold on to as coping mechanisms. They may be afraid to go against the machine or don’t know how to or should they, and those who do not fit in the accepted roles especially, seem to be out of sync or do what they need to do despite whatever. Interesting are the different kinds of female characters there, how there are systematic learned rules of behaviour that stick, codes for genders and how these codes are taken for granted. How women portrayed are in their places and obviously struggle and lack power. They try to move on up as do men, they have dreams. Men try to move inside women’s panties and sex is clearly a very basic tool of control and making it. It is the first thought, easy way out, a getaway car and motive. World of art is a dusty stagnant relic too, which needs heavy dusting. Alex, the leading women, is afraid to enter this monument of perfected trained fragile-looking fairy-like ballerinas and primadonnas. She want’s to make it on her own with her own credentials with her talent and does not need a man to do that for her.
Real life is stranger than fiction says this welder.
“I have a friend who has a simple test for a movie: Is this movie as interesting as the same things would be, happening in real life? A lot of movies aren’t, and “Flashdance” sure isn’t. If this movie had spent just a little more effort getting to know the heroine of its story, and a little less time trying to rip off “Saturday Night Fever,” it might have been a much better film.”
Reviews and critiques strongly reflect the persona of the critic who is writing. For some reason in this case feminist perspective does not shine through. Wonder why.
