Importance of having free art colleges is the vital question at the moment, that making art will not become a class issue more than it already is.

What Makes an Artist? – Grayson Perry and Sarah Thornton | Tate Talks

It is the very basic battle, a kind of violent arguing and taking sides of how to know what is art and decide about it strictly, or could it just be as simple as you like it as art, enjoy it as art. The same struggle goes on with who is an artist and can be an artist. Is it money that makes the professional, is it quality, network, school and family? To know is to know professional quality and understand the standing of the artist, how complex it all is. One definition does not apply for all. Measuring happens very often by evaluating skill, the artistry itself is the measure of how good an artist one is, how much effort and sweat art has taken to make. This idea is prized widely, what does skill tell us. We want to be blown away by craftsmanship, price and size, effort and extraordinary rare talent. Idea of normal physical labor and validation of certain results can take too much hold. To ask to copy reality as it is seen is a normal question and can you do it. Something equals good. People measure art and the artist via how much what is being made is exactly a replica of what we see and know. For many that is valuable as art, familiarity, knowing, recognizing, seeing, understanding and that it is also difficult. Artistry is also on which pedestal the person is and is a matter of climbing there, visibility, media coverage, being noticed, written about and acknowledged by those who know. Is this a spot for manipulation? Fine art is a highly specific specified field where expertise is required and those who think they don’t know enough are scared they make fools of themselves, which scare exists there among all. Maybe that is why scene is so stiff, very difficult to approach, reluctant to change eventhough it is talking about it and difficult to get in to as it is made of people who measure art and people. Interestingly positions of power are held on to a long time which does not help, conventions and hierarchies rule. Position gained is not given away that easily. Position of power in art is an interesting topic for the reason that the field is so specific, isolated and demands a lot of knowledge to know and be an expert of. Those who have power are trusted and valued. How power is used then? It does not look all that good in terms of making speedy progress.

There are those who decide for borders, walls, expectations to be filled and labels to be put on a person, reputations and careers to be had and probably the crowd is too small and tight. Celebration and party is a closed area. Artist is a kind of grand title and an honorary one as such, although honor is a strange concept in this regard, in terms of art. Is it honourable to be an artist and what does it mean? To practise what you preach? Make wonderful objects, eye candy for buyers? Double standards and looking good are a matter of keeping the impeccable image and what is art for other than image/habitus purposes, usually it is an accepted thought art is good for our spirit and health in general. When we look good we are happy and content? The grandiose and size enclosed there is part of the myth of an artist which oftentimes and more and more is a burden for art, artists, for the whole system and that it is male. To be an artist is a loaded profession, a fairytale and a fable, which one must over and over again debunk, break and disturb. Packed with stereotypes and clichés that circle in people’s minds, artist is sacred idolized archetype, this used up poster has troubled me and caused frustration, when does it ever change. How does an artist look like, how is artist portrayed, where art is when it is art, how approachable it all is and what is fear of art, how weird the artist is, how sick. Problems there are ideological and stuck always involving status, gender, class, money, quality of art, form of art, origin, places of show, networking, ways of interacting and talking etc. It is a whole bunch issues and beliefs that are and will be problematic, hard to overcome, accept or understand why they hold on so tightly. What is the turning point? One definitely is that art schooling remains available for those who do not come from money and that it is not a shameful thing to be working class.



Hypocrisy is to hide. How interesting pretence is can be argued and must be.

Hide your true self, hide your intentions, hide what it actually is you’re doing and to prevent from changing, changing yourself and how things are done. It takes something which most are not ready to go and do. The thought of losing and loss is too great, so to talk about social change is much more safe. I use the word scene instead of using the concept of art world. Art world to me resonates only size and the business which circulates wealth or doesn’t. What gets shared is interesting to think about. To define art world is like defining a construct that is eating its own tail which does not want to interact in any other way than what is possible for that beast as it is unable to think in any other way. To revolve unchanged talking about social change in fancy spaces how ‘high art’ is going to take part in social action which is making change which very though is somewhat odd.

It could be heartwarming if arts was in any way doing what it says, being transparent, reliable, other than massive tool for propaganda, producing toys, extravaganza, making impressions to fool and for fools. Yes I would like to believe those with money and power, I really would and please come and ask for taxpayers money to make social change. Why I don’t see the effect needed because corruption and false talk has made it clear that to make social change there must be a total turnover in values, in ways of doing, the concept of fine art is not to change anything but stay the same. To make art temples and sites for tourists is not in any way making social change. It is doing the opposite. Sure tourism brings in the money. To think money changes everything is thinking wrong in the first place. Contempt is so obvious and present I don’t know what other social change would mean than on very personal level to examine one’s behaviour, falsehood, hypocrisy, why one does what one does: what are the true motives of making and doing anything. To take offence is so normal.

One problem is the need for money, the flaunting of money, the show off of money, talk about money, that money brings value and only money. It is very destructive what comes to the environment the spectacle and valuing of the material. Art institutions like to say they work to change things. It is bizarre as very little has changed what comes to art business, position of the artist, where art is shown and what makes value in art which is the institutional presence and expertise, professionalism which also follows money. It is where artist must be shown if a traditional artistic career is what we must pursue.

Kulturkampf Of The Left? Extremes, Be Gone!


The Urgency of Art in a Dangerous, Rapidly Changing World

With the first Culture Summit in Abu Dhabi, Foreign Policy seeks to highlight the power of collective imagination as a force for good.


To test limits happens quite easily: limits are somewhat odd.

Testing begins when we get naked. Nudity is very badly tolerated even though art is filled with nudes, especially women. They usually are reclining nudes or bare-breasted embarrassingly trying to hide their bosom. For me I am naked even though I am fully clothed, this is the gaze and comments I get. Banning nudity online does not make it better, it makes it worse. People who have never seen a naked body seem to be on the edge and falling over, surely Finland has more open culture what comes to nudity, many people are just ashamed and scared: what happens to fragile minds in this world, to those who see naked breasts happens something out of the order, which is intolerable and wrong. To explain why and how I am porn is that I am measured and seen as a porn object always, that is the default setting and why I am for, have always been which I have to constantly fight and it is tiring. To be an underwear model would be an ideal profession for me surely. To lose 5 to ten Kilos would go perfectly with that, wouldn’t it. Taking off clothes does not make the situation much different, only that I can examine what happens and write my reply, contradict in concrete perception on female body which is shamed and too much to take because it is out of the ordinary somehow, I don’t know how that is possible.

Naked female body equals the world going out of its joints, hell breaking loose or falling down as people are dictated by their urges which tells that we are in large sense animals and respect animal urges as frightening posing a threat to humanity. Humans must be fully clothed even in art. How do we explore our body and sex obsessed culture if naked body can’t be put under microscope in public? How do we make an impact which truly changes something in our obsession, fear and loop of old ideas that do not work well in today’s world? How do we show what our culture is all about: women are not allowed to rule their bodies, women do not have right to reflect and see what happens when nudity is and female body is put in centre of the attention? Will you say how sorry you are that women are born porn stars, at least I am, was? It is not enough to say you are sorry, nothing changes. Women must be allowed to set their boundaries themselves. How do we make progress seems very hard and slow when rights of women are in the dirt. This is much about self-governance of one’s body and life.

Vastaukseni Youtubelle joka kieltää alastomat rinnat videoissa ja jäädyttää koko tilin jos osassa videoista on alastomuutta jossa näkyy rinnat:

Videoni ovat taidevideoita ja niillä käsitellään naisen kehoa ja siihen liittyvää ongelmallisuutta, jota tämä kielto on osa eli naisen alaston vartalo on pornograafinen sellaisenaan ja kielletty epäasiallisena, tyyliin imettäminen on julkisessa tilassa heikkohermoisille haitallista. Taiteessa alaston vartalo etenkin naisen vartalo on iso osa koko taidehistoriaa, joten on varsin kummallista, että vielä nykyään koetaan tarpeelliseksi verhota ja piilottaa täysin luonnollinen asia ja vielä naisen itsensä käsittelemänä, miehet ovat yleensä katsojan ja tekijän asemassa. Videoillani ei edes ole seksiä ja tarkoitukseni on juuri viitata taidehistoriaan ja miksi maalaus on eri asia kuin oikea olemassaoleva vartalo. Piirustuksissani kylläkin on varsinaista pornoa, mutta niitä en esitä Youtubessa. Tarkoitukseni on myös tuoda esille tekopyhä kulttuuri joka on hyvin seksi ja vartalokeskeinen ja vihaa naisia. Trollit ja Youtube että Google sen todella tekevät näkyväksi: naisvihan ja tekopyhyyden.

My answer to YouTube for freezing my account for showing breasts in couple of my videos: My videos are art videos and I examine female body and problematical involved what comes to women and their bodies. This ban tells that female body is pornographic as such and forbidden to see in everyday context, for example breast-feeding in public space is for many too much to take. Banning nudity in art is one reason why people have hard time understanding and tolerating nudity as normal. People have hard time with human body even though it is completely natural and should be viewed as such, not something to hide and be ashamed of. Men have been those who look, gaze, comment and view naked women sexually. In my videos there is not sex, there are breasts of mine which obviously are pornographic per se.

My meaning is to have a conversation with art history which is filled with female nudes and what these nudes have been there for on display, what is the sacred and what is abomination, unholy, why painting is different from actual real life image and why nudity is immediately about sex? My drawings and paintings do have sex in them but they too are not for gazing purposes. I examine pornography and culture which is soaked in porn on many levels, so much so it has become normal to pose like a porn star and ask for porn-like sex from a stranger online. My meaning is to question body and sex obsessed culture which still can’t look at female body without it being a disgrace, the body and the woman. It is exactly her which ought to be ashamed not men. It is hypocrisy and misogyny. This culture is kept up by trolls, YouTube and Google especially. It is ok to hurt, stalk and violate privacy but to look at nudity in art is too much to take.

selfie of going to sleep

Betrayal is the ultimate lesson which many never learn: It is to know that you will lose in the end.

To have power over many means is to be corrupted by power? How immediate the corruption is, how in-depth and thorough depending on why you seek power and what you want it for. You get or are given power for various ways and reasons and you think it is something to own and call yours only, something you deserve for what you are and what you represent. Power is liberty to do what you will and responsibility not to, it is to pleasure yourself, indulge, bath in and feel grand. To do exactly as you please in position of power is something many think they can, it is when you do not understand what power means and is for and that everybody has power.

What kind of power is used within and with art, to what kind of people power is given is interesting as it is clearly misused and abused for personal interests and gain, used to glorify and make grandiose, to talk about progress without making any. To whom power is given is the issue of those who grant power. It is thought power is for those who are the most capable, trustworthy and fair people. We assume people who have power deserve it and know what to do with it. To take power away from those who disturb this balance is part of the power game that is played within art. Art is a business and how things look is the most important thing. It makes hypocrisy one big phantom that cannot be faced nor admitted to existing. When there is a lot to lose financially and in status all the fine arguments, ideas and talk play the charade and as acts to glorify something that is not that at all, something good and worthwhile.

Hypocrisy is a safety net, a mask to look better than you actually are. It is denial of facts, to do otherwise than you tell to do, should be done, would be good to do. It is more of a normality than obscurity to act hypocritically. It is telling there is much fear of letting you be yourself, to admit your true opinions, your true face, to disagree. Fear of loss is great.

Prejudices stick hard, almost unbelievably tough. To know personally gay people, mentally ill, poor, rich, people of different ethnic backgrounds, different classes, people who think differently, look different, act different etc. is essential in making world more tolerant, therefore ghettos, isolation, divisions keep prejudices alive. For not people to marginalize in an unsatisfactory way left in loneliness they have to do something about prejudices themselves. It is scary to meet people who hate you because you are gay, as it is scary if they hate you being a woman. How would that kind of meeting happen and what would happen? A hate crime or public hugging? Prejudices function strangely in an imagined fantasy world, simplistically focusing on weakness. Working on comparison between those who think are strong to evaluate those who seem weak. Weakness is intolerable still, weaknesses seem easy to spot and strengths are there to be grasped if you are willing to join group of strong and able to, having those abilities required. Groups of those who think are mighty and strengthen their existence as a community. Comparison and division, separation, isolation, it is a familiar behavioral pattern. It is a lonely spot to think differently, but what can you do but be honest with yourself. How honest must one be and how dear a feature honesty is altogether?

Normal and abnormal having a battle in our everyday in us. We go through thinking is that what we do normal and acceptable and try to find ways to preferably stay in that frame of normal and acceptable. In this picture art is very much welcomed as mixing the pack and moving barriers of thinking patterns and ways of seeing. Therefore artists are also seen as dangerous hazardous and suspicious people. They like to think themselves and do as they please, at least some of them since art scene is also regulated and appropriated by rules of proper. Insanity is much of a taboo, but fully with us since we daily face it, like it or not, acknowledge it or not. We define insanity ourselves, what is mad for us, what is a crazy thing to do equals to something you would not do and you disapprove. Or it is hip and outrageous behavior. Go figure. Insanity entails danger in any social scene, art is no exception. Danger of losing face, danger in irrationality and unexpectedness. Art is not free of prejudices, unfortunately. As it seems prejudices go stronger the smaller and isolated the group is. Contemporary art scene has isolated itself very effectively. To say artists are like that has been common enough for me to hear in the arts and outside of it. One problematic issue being ideas of inside and outside of it. What are they like exactly? There is a stereotype of an artist which creates partly the whole scene of arts. If art is strongly divided into an outer part of society what is it for, who does it serve? Prejudices and fascist ideas do not fit my idea of spirit of art nor spirit of equal mankind.

How could art be fascist!?OMG