art

What would not be about power?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

It is about how we see ourselves compared to others. What we can do in relation to others, what kind of possibilities we have and how do we find our potential which and what there is to be found as long as we live. Education is the key issue what comes to understanding and taking over one’s power and put it in use. Power, the feeling and the position, is much dependent on other people. To let people have power or take it away. To know how to use power and understand how not to use it, morals step in the game. How morally good and superior can we be when we have more power than most?

One’s power position can be out of balance delusional and one can think one’s power gained is well deserved to exploit as much as one can and profit out of it. This comes to mind always when thinking about power and what is done with it. It is a force that you either have or do not. It is given and some people are born with it and they are let know that they are very powerful as beings which can lead to thinking power is god given. We learn about the power we have in the environment we grow. Also the powerless learn about power. What is power for the powerless is education not imitating those who act as if they own the world and can do whatever they desire. Nowadays money is power as it always has been and we feel powerless when we do not have any.

Many people do not deserve power they have gained because they use it to benefit themselves even more. Such aspirations can be disguised as working for the public good, which happens in art. Much art which is displayed in prestige places tend to reflect what is power and is a clear image of the self-centred, egoist and elitist idea that those in power know what kind of power they have, how to show that they have power in good taste and style, that power is a possession of theirs and they share it when they decide with people who fit their world and enjoy the same illusions of a perfect world. Friends, connections, wealth, possessions, status, positions, visibility, it is obvious that those are the things to be protected not shared and if these things make one even more wealthy even better.

In art power relations come to show as full-blown illness which cannot be cured because it is so intoxicating. The power art has is that it can lift one so high to be adored and idolised it is tempting to abuse it. All sorts of thoughts go through one’s head when someone says one is an artist, one is a curator, art critic, museum director, collector etc. They all have a position in the system which moves very slowly.

As long as nobody gets hurt.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Art is not to hurt feelings is a thought that repeatedly comes across as something art officials and people of importance like to hold on to and pass forward, at least this is something I have been led to understand directly and indirectly. Feelings that must be protected what are those one wonders and why such care for feelings of anyone? Outrage is scary obviously, a shame, nuisance. Art that is not to hurt feelings but still is to make us feel. What do we think when we feel? We must be made feel pleasant and amused, enjoy a moment, event, experience and be filled with euphoria, joy or something similar to eating candy, not confused, angry, betrayed, contradicted, confronted or accused but fulfilled. Feelings and states of mind must be protected is the assumption and a kind of need and order which is taken for granted, anything else is terrorising and disturbing, bad art mostly or is it even art at all. To be disturbed is something we already are in continuum. Art is a refuge from disturbance. Art is seen in silence and this silence is preserved carefully in clean often white spaces.

What!

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Interest in the mouth

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Impact of any government and state on art institutions and their officials is in my mind undeniable.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

”Wielga-Skolimowska’s conflict ultimately highlights the danger and vulnerability of cultural institutions that rely on national funding during extremist regimes.” http://hyperallergic.com/344609/a-polish-curator-is-fired-in-berlin-exposing-two-countries-political-blind-spots/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=5%20Books%20to%20Read%20About%20Artists%20Under%20Nazism&utm_content=5%20Books%20to%20Read%20About%20Artists%20Under%20Nazism+CID_78c1412d068d8738c7a6a144c370e8cf&utm_source=HyperallergicNewsletter&utm_term=A%20Polish%20Curator%20Is%20Fired%20in%20Berlin%20Exposing%20Two%20Countries%20Political%20Blind%20Spots

A Polish Curator Is Fired in Berlin, Exposing Two Countries’ Political Blind Spots

How should we observe, see and think about institutions that are financially dependent on finance coming from the government and other parties, who very often have needs they want to be fulfilled by supporting culture and be seen in a good light? Art is very vulnerable to manipulation and censoring. It depends on money coming from outside to function.

Do we have to please to get art be seen? Does art need to be pretty or beautiful? As it became obvious during Guggenheim debate in Finland, the one main reason to have the museum on the spot was that it would have had a beautifying effect.

Are you mental? Can you talk about it freely? Mental illness in art is a curious case. Something to be afraid of and keep your distance?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Question is whose business it is to know? Who needs to know other than gossip hungry public who can feed their fantasies and biases? Do we need to know what kinds of personal issues any artist has had to understand the art? Do these personal issues have an effect on art? What happens to the artist in the process? To make a judgment that art is personal no matter what, it is what one makes with one’s personality, and it is clear what goes on on the inside is what has an effect to the work, any work. Throughout history women who have pursued artist life have been often seen crazy and unbalanced, bad apples. Well, in some cases women artists still are seen through that stereotype and expectation, having chosen such risky field. All this sums up the whole we see and what we are not shown, what we are not allowed to see and talk about, not to speak of what we can be and do.

.

It has been strange to witness how prejudiced fine art is, not the audience so. Audience is protected from seeing hurtful and ’damaging’ art. Audience is different from the crowd who does not interest itself in art. It is the same as when sex in art causes a scandal. Sex does not cause scandals in movies or on tv but fine art is a haven of conservative minds, although it is sexist as hell. Sexist as hell and it does not cause a scandal. Very telling of a world where surface is what matters and issues are dealt with on surface level. Digging deeper would change things dramatically. Harasses, bullies and sexists are protected when they have a position where they are almost untouchable.

Mix of personal and political is an expectation but can these issues within truly be faced, sexism, hypocrisy, stagnant scene which evolves slowly? I seriously doubt it. A surface which can be looked at, judged, yes, solving anything, no, progressive, my ass. Knowing and talking of the problems of artists has created a gap, knowing or expecting that such problems exist or stereotypical artists exist. Problems more than average? I don’t think so, as far as I know. Art is just as prejudiced and ill as people are on average. Is there a contradiction? Something to be appalled by? Audience is interested and expecting issues such as mental illness and drama, maybe. How close can they get? A constant surprise, conservatism, even mental illness is and has been discussed within art for ages, for there are many artists who have suffered mental disorders, severe or less. It is something which puts people on alert, talking and scared. Suicide and depression among poets is a romantic image of a suffering artist. Artists to suffer is also such an image which comes across frequently. 19th and 20th century romantic ideal and image lives on even though our understanding has widened. To make art that handles human torment, difficulties, social issues or any difficult issue make it so that the artist has issues in her personal life too. To understand art via the people who make art is of course logical but has consequences.

Every Finn has a relationship to Russia. (Sadist at work. What’s not to love.)

| Henna Timanttimetsä

All the things that Russia is inspire me. To understand this is probably difficult but I guess my feelings and thoughts are normal considering in part I am from Russia and anything Russian was present in Finland in my childhood. As Russia was in the News all the time, an influence via the media given for us. It is of course like all big nations are a constant puzzle and cause of chaos, all the time. I am almost obsessed partly because we are neighbors, because the country is dangerous and the influence we have had from Russia is mighty huge in many ways. Partly because the amount of grandiose, contradictions, sheer lunacy and wildness are beyond anything else. Dark mystery of Russian mind or mysticism, an abysmal depth, and violence that scare both the shit out of me, a history to sink into, a turmoil that is a nonstop mess politically, socially and culturally, painful and bloody for the most part and to follow the soap opera is to realize that this all is happening. The whole of Russia is an explosive entity that excites me as a place and state of mind and has done so always. The question is why the threat Russia likes to embody and keep alive? Russia, the scare and secrets it holds, which mystery it still is for Finland as we wonder what will Russia do next, a criminal for the rest of the world but something we are related to. Criminal is what it politically enjoys being. Such monstrous fear justifies warring just to keep fear alive and well, justifies inequality and bullying because big guys do so, not mentally mature though. Russia enjoys it grandiose and megalomaniac attacks. Its war history is such a big part of the image and character of Russia that warring is something it seems to do naturally. Amount of veterans and problems caused by wars inside the country are also gigantic. It is at constant war also with its own people. Therefore to be peaceful and start building an equal and peaceful country that does not threat its neighbors and the US is a faraway dream country, unthinkable almost to achieve but lovely to hate. How to change something that is historically and organically a law and a habit, violent macho culture? The way things are, ways people think and what things are unthinkable, unimaginable, out of reach. To keep decades long feuds going deserves a prize.

Russia could, if it was in its interest, change Russia completely for the better, meaning better for all Russians and its neighbors. Nevertheless violence and the attraction to deadly games and sadism is unescapable. I adore Russia for its culture and because it is so different to Finland, the sterile cubical Finland. I adore beauty of Russia, naturally, which beauty makes me melancholic and blue, which wildness/ melancholy/wilderness/unexpectedness is in its people, literature, vodka, food, cities, in its size and in its history. Savages, I love your beauty! Russia is an endless game, un suspicion, that does not change all the time to be a contemporary country among others as history is always present as is the suspicion. The way of thinking is a monolith. Nothing is erased, corrected, hidden or something to be ashamed of, other than the assassinations and hazy businesses might be something to rethink. But Russia is moving ahead in someways, rolling ahead and changing maybe visually, how about culturally? Trying to be cool and being definitely scary is a very special feature.

I cannot erase the image of Brezhnev’s funeral from my mind as the occasion was shown on Finnish TV in the 80’s or the nuclear threat or the possibility that Russia any day might do the same as it did 1939 attacking Finland. Somehow possibility of revolution seems impossible, that Russian people would or could overthrow Putin, never. So far we are friends. It is a strange friendship, honest and dishonest at the same time. Something that one can only have with Russians.

Here are some of photographs I took in Kronstadt 2001. Haven’t Photoshopped them, so there is dust.

How to draw skin?

| Henna Timanttimetsä

There is a problem and it is about skin. It is about those features that are called racial. The ones that divide us in some ways which are very artificial but naturally make a visual difference we pay attention to. We make our judgment via eyesight and learn how we should look. We notice our differences in appearance immediately but why we do not take difference for granted as a gift but a threat? It is the one thing we pay attention to, we understand to be born with difference is what we are but to accept difference as worthy in reality is challenging. Children do not discriminate in the ways adults do. They learn to discriminate and bully.

Skin has been an interest for me ever since I started studying art. It is the one thing that is very hard to depict and picture. My sculpting teacher was determinate to teach portraiture and it was the one most important after posture how skin appeals and comes to life in sculpting, on hair, the other matter. It is interesting when you use clay, stone, plaster, wood or whatever material to make it look alive. Is it a question about symmetry, harmony, how we see, or what we want to see, because disharmony and a kind of chaos for eyes is what we reject but is constant before us?

Case of Britney Spears is an excellent example of female oppression. It is obsession for hyper-sexual child-women who seemingly do not decide for themselves what is their image but they talk of control.

| Henna Timanttimetsä

Interest in how women are seen sellable objects is a curious one. First how much are we things to possess, material to be moulded and what is the purpose? How women are merchandise and for what reason? Is slave 4 u the answer? Merchandised as ever so often women themselves allow this to happen. They make the initiative and show the will to be that object. It is a wanted she-goddess, divine. To be a sex object is seen sexy as such, a deed, a statement to be had in any form possible, as long as there is picture of her it sells. Are women in control as many pop stars claim to be, active but playing passive? Have control you can have over your weight, a discipline, a routine, a way of life. How voluntary and aware of abuse of sexuality should we be and think actively about changing the repetition of gendered clichés? They seem to be effective in making millions. Isn’t it weakness to be unable to do otherwise, unable to have any other message with the whole of one’s being that one is supposed to control? It can be a powerful calculated strategy to use this tradition of stars and ultimately be able to do as one pleases in the end. To be super-rich and look beautiful in photos is one dream for many people regardless of gender. It is an idea of manipulating a mass of people by creating an idol. Are ways to get there different for men and women, more limited for women what comes to creating personal career path in entertainment?

Britney does sing about the culture of oppression around her, involving her, sheer tormenting of her by paparazzi portrayed in her song Piece of me. Is it oppression in the true sense of the word one might wonder. Imprisonment policed by what is said is nothing new. Will she be abandoned when she rebels? She is ridiculed which works well for the press. Shaming works for the tabloids, continuation of oppressive ways women are kept in their place as what is news concerning women’s lives, what kinds of things make headlines concerning women and how they choose to live their lives. Role of a nice girl she is not permitted to change and be more serious. Girliness is not serious shit? To develop further as an artist means to experiment with what one is expected to do and be and what could be escaped from to something unknown. Role that does not evolve beyond boundaries there are is very much the one for women, safety and known areas are given from early on. Outside are dangers which boys go after and test more freely. What are the dangers inside could not be more clear. Yes one can go crazy. Division to safety and to danger is artificial, essential things remain unnoticed.

Repetitious ways to act out are the ones we must speak out about, oppose. To live by what is known and acceptable stand the one barrier to climb over, to not just play the part given is basic rebellion for the young. That is the hard way to figure out what to do, how to find a way out. Ways for Britney to rebel have been to get fat, look ’ugly’ not smiling to the camera, hit paparazzi with an umbrella, scream, quit the nice girl all-pleasing act which does not take much of effort to break. For women it is a glasshouse where any misconduct shows and is scrutinized. I wonder as she does not analyze it herself to the core the problematic nature of the business towards women in particular and her in it escaping photographers but she gives us clues to feel for her still as it is clear to feel for her is not the deal. She wants to be treated like a human being while working in the business that is not empathetic of failure and weakness, looking other than pitch perfect is not an option. Punk allows women to be ugly and behave as they see fit. It would have been interesting to see Britney change genre.

Song Piece of me which is a much needed critical point of view on her life as celebrity. The song is a picture of a person living hunted which she has felt is against her human rights, rightly so. Celebrities may seem kind of super humans who should be pleased for every publicity they get. That is what they are there for. They are livelihood for many not only for themselves. As they have what many want, they themselves should give all of themselves. Where goes the limit and what stands as interesting journalism, valuable for society? Social media has given us the option of revealing all and we are watching what happens next. It is a whirlwind. That makes a mess itself, a movement of what we see social today. Superstars pose interest to the public in their wealth, position as constantly looked at beings. Question often is why are we interested? What is it we pay attention to and why criticism does not change as much as it is legal to practice this business of vulture?

There could not be more perfect example of contemporary female oppression than Britney in the sense that violence against her is totally accepted by the media and public. It is not seen as violence or oppression, or if it is, it is not important as she is just a pop singer, doing something light-headed and stupid. How could something light be hurtful? She is very privileged and lucky to be where she is which for many equals happiness and perfection and justification. In this picture women are still sold as body parts, shrunken dolls who say what they are let to say, to play the part which is thought to be sexy, desirable and alluring as much as repetition can be. Look the look and get slapped either way. This role of perfection is not what women should want, but they must want it. Does it sound tricky and contradictory? When women go and break the role-play like feminists have done, maybe they have gone crazy and are in of need help since hell has broken loose for what they have done.

When women themselves break the machine, crack down the perfect engine, it is Hysteria, it is a scandal. It is meltdown, it is out of order, a sickness. Women in need of a doctor, in need of cure to set themselves in the right order where nothing is wrong or the matter is nothing special. Correcting themselves not to make the mistake of saying and doing other than what is planned and expected of them. Britney is seen only as someone who went nuts in front of us, got teary, which is documented and ridiculed, which is headlines. Popstar who is recovering from bad behavior and mending up her career, making a comeback, watching carefully out what she says, how she stands. It is tragic the way how she is treated as someone who had a meltdown, crying in front of us, being vulnerable and hurt.  There were 43 000 people in 2014 who committed suicide in the USA alone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_the_United_States

Tragedy is the complete blindness and indifference towards mental illness, shame and ridicule around  lunacy, mental issues altogether. Ways women are monitored and policed is neurotic and making women and all of society ill. The insanity of celebrity culture itself is something to be treated. Not to mention what goes on in the world as a whole. To laugh may help but it is not a comedy show. It is still her who is crazy, recovering from her condition. Something to be hidden and be embarrassed about. To talk about mental illness is to talk of those others who are ashamed of being ill and are not like the rest who are well in the head. It is a matter of how we look at things, isn’t it?

To play a part for money is slavery, as is constant need for gossip, growing need, or would we be needing the info of the rich and famous to copy them. Gossip is there nevertheless. The much hated and somewhat controversial artist of our time as Britney is especially via gossip journalism and music she makes, journalism which more or less laughs at her and her problematic relationships and  relationship with the industry she feeds from. When she makes a new album she is making a comeback. Does she evolve as a musician and is that the topic? She is making distance to her turmoil, to her problems of which she does not want to talk about in public. Problems are still hers not problems of those who watch. All she does is well, a kind of survival, behaving perfectly, playing her part. She has a part to play in this show and she is still present, acute, making money and interesting as she works, and as the journalists say, grows up, matures. Her age does not show that much, does it. She is interesting in a way how she is portrayed, how she presents herself. Is that her, are we supposed to know that? She is color of her hair, her dance moves, her unchangeable something in her.
 
Why I think of oppression when I think of a wealthy pop princess who has a history of strange public appearances and caused emotional trauma? Her conflicting with the image she is to keep up is interesting. Conflicting with the press she is to please with what she says and what she looks like and to be all about how she does all that floating like a feather, keeping up her appearance, her look. How she makes comeback again and has become fit again and gorgeous again. This all is about what is expected of women, to keep it together not lamenting. It is about how women are kept in tight leash and punished when they do differently, don’t obey and how that can be scandalous and something changes drastically. It is all about oppression wrapped around in a glittering image, perfected in a way there is no breath so she almost does not age, unable to breath, holding her breath. It is all very clear still she is the one who was deemed having mental problems when she shaved her hair off in public, she was hostile and showed her feelings towards the system that she was created for. All her ’terrible’ outbursts and in some opinion strange choices do seem strange only in the context of pop, especially in context of American mainstream music aimed at young girls, which itself is more or less perverted and gives twisted ideas about how to be a girl and a woman. What is desirable, what to look like to be desirable and valuable, worthy of attention, what are good things for girls to be interested in and what is the relationship between girls and boys about, how this ideal and illusion evolves or if it does not. Why such ideals exist in the first place and what do they represent?
 
Stating the obvious, I guess, still I wonder why there is so much trashing of a princess who loves to dance and sing? How hungry are we for gossip is very telling of mental state of our culture. What is it all about, the need to get there in to the infantile mind, to slaughter and rip apart people who do something exceptional, are in the spotlight, put there for a reason which is to make money. Pop princess is a money making machine when she does well, so any outbursts of punk-ish manner totally seem crazy, even though when she herself sings she is going crazy. Not in real life you are not meant to go crazy, it is just a song. Mental illness is for the losers and that is scary shit.