22 August 2012


One role of the artist, among many others, is to propose unacceptable notions. To address concepts that are deeply entrenched in the consciousness and are firmly viewed by society and individuals in a specific manner. The artist then comes and overthrows this order, sometimes with violence, sometimes subtle, and as a consequence the reaction of the public is almost always very strong. Some ideas are so deeply confined in us that we see them not only part as our rationale, but as parts of our bodies and thus, when they are altered and addressed, it may very well seem as if the artist wants to forcefully extract a tooth from our mouths.

It's not that these concepts never change, however. As time unfolds they gradually adapt to different elements of the ages, but the process is slow and sometimes not reliable. The artist is the herald of changes against time. However, as well as they might anticipate these and state different behaviours as obsolete, the action principles are fundamentally different. By pointing out a rusty, antique idea inadequate to the current time, the artist does not wish that it is suddenly dropped and a new one created - surprisingly, as many members of the public regard artistry in this way.

The reality is that the artist deals in questions, not empirical values. He could say that a concept is obsolete and doesn't have any use for humanity, but in fact the truth is the contrary. Does that mean that he was simply wrong, that he attacked harmony for the sake of it and he was just generalising his own frustrations and particular emotons? On the surface, it does seem plausible, and usually the reaction of the public may very well point this out when such a case emerges.

That is were a fault occurs. As soon as one treats an artist's representation as an absolute concept in a value-based system then there is a danger of missing the whole essence: the purpose of the work is to be adopted, unconditionally, even if it makes no sense or one cannot approve it. Then, the mind can experience and altered reality where it can ask some specific questions which cannot be answered otherwise.

For example, one artist may state that the system of marriage is obsolete and humanity has reached the evolutionary point where it needs to be rejected. He would point out that the current era is that of fast exchanges of information, of absolute freedom and of a massive influx of stimuli. Thus, a life-long agreement between partners, as noble as it is, seems preposterous and only serves as limit imposing. And it is, essentially, endgame.

Some people would consider this very avant-garde and deem it indeed a possibility. Others would point it as being mere stupidity and suggest that person to find himself some love-life and then do some proper work: after all, what could one individual know about the emotions and feelings between two others? About the way in which those two love each other, so deep that they make this step to make it forever?

But if, as mentioned before, everyone would instead adopt this idea, would it then mean that marriage should be then instantly dropped? Yet again, that would be a fault. The proposition, first of all, would not be against a life-long relationship, but of the paperwork and mass-involvement of other people - such as relatives, friends, authorities and so on. But even then, the proposal still does not deal in the concrete materiality of marriage.

It only invites people to temporarily adopt a dimension where marriage has been excluded. What would then be the constant of a successful relationship? Yet again, discussions can arise, that marriage is just a form of confirmation and by no means is the basis of a relationship. 'What do you know, artist, about what's between us? Surely we have ascertained that deep thing you are talking about and that's precisely why we marry. Yes, artist, we have discovered it way before you and we cherish it in this way.'

Endgame again, it may seem. The artist has been proven wrong, and meddling his frustration in things he can't know. Yet even if the audience may deem it so, in fact the artwork has succeeded. While they think they simply rejected an erroneous proposition, in fact the seed had already been planted in their hearts. The retrospection happened, the world explored and the catalyst for change adopted. Because the artist works against time so a grain of it equals infinity.

This is how art works.


  1. Mirosul acestei postari imi aminteste de o data cand am trecut pe langa o ferma de vaci cu trenul. O alta chestie, mai bine scriai pe romaneste. Si o remarca la tema ta (aparent) preferata: http://www.vaultoflol.com/sites/default/files/w1m75.jpeg

  2. Băligarul încă din cele mai vechi timpuri a fost folosit ca și îngrășământ în agricultură și a ajutat în mod ironic la supraviețuirea rasei umane. Deci e un compliment. Așa e și cu arta, e un mare căcat care nu are ce să te ajute direct și care, corect spus, n-o sa salveze lumea de foamete sau de sărăcie. Și totuși se învârte.

    Însă nu mă deranjează dacă postarea pute. Nu urmăresc un ideal estetic și adesea nici nu citesc de două ori după ce scriu ceva. Majoritatea postărilor sunt un flux de conștiință care poate fi într-adevăr un mare căcat. Dar e căcatul meu, așa că n-am de ce să nu-l pun aici pe tavă, pentru a fi servit de toți.

    Pe de altă parte, nu am o scuză când nu scriu românește. Doar mi-am format un vocabular specific într-o altă limbă și atunci când traduc anumite idei mi se pare pur și simplu că nu sună bine în română. În consecință, în momentele alea nu o folosesc. Asta este dacă sună pretențios sau ridicol, e doar o preferință personală.