liapis ptrubeckoi/artist from white russia
Here is a translation of some of the lyrics :
“I eat gold bricks for lunch,
Diamond dessert, oil cream.
My name is Beelzebub : the master of stratosphere,
I am unbelievably cool and commonly respected.
Refrain:
In my left hand is a Snikers, in my right hand is a Mars.
My PR manager is Karl Marx.
In my left hand is a Snikers, in my right hand is a Mars.
My PR manager is Karl Marx.
Capital! Capital! Capital! Capital!
My face is Madonna, all filled with rotten pears.
All kneel! The orchestra play flourish!
Capital! Capital! Capital! Capital!
statues pulled down....
it would be interesting to see about finding the people who worked on this. the soldiers, the everyday people and interviewing them as to the mechanics of how it came about and what it was like to do, etc. this is probably not possible, but who knows..? it would NOT be so as to make fun of them or anything like that.. but rather to gain understanding of how the mechanics of this sorta thing actually works... and what the feelings/etc. of the people on the ground were who were busy making this spectacle, this theater, this production 'real'... like a weird anthropology of behind the scenes of this Reality TV show... in the realm of everyday [media] politics...
same here....
same here...
i am not so interested in how people felt about these statues being torn down (partly as there is already a lot of footage, etc. on this) but on how this kind of thing is orchestrated, organized, etc.
sorta like the inner workings of making contemporary spectacle of this nature.
its sorta the inverse of Triumph of the Will.
In the Neo-Liberal state its not the Marching In and Forward as a Mass, as a Glorified Unity that is glorified,
its rather the breaking down of 'false' idols that are holding the people back from true "creativity", entrepeneurial development, etc. etc.
The idea is of opening the gates to the real freedom, that is what is glorified.... And this 'real freedom' is left vague and mystified... that is crucial...
And also this opening of the gates, this tearing down of the old Tyranny is proposed in the name of a kind of horizontal free space. It has no leaders, no Great Men, no ideology (or so it argues)....
There is no one behind it.. but freedom...
I am reminded here of an essay by a slave in america... one of the slave narratives.... that makes a very interesting argument about freedom... about how it is never one thing... how it is in fact experienced and practiced as something entirely different depending on your 'position' in the power structure at the moment....
anyhow...
*****
just to quickly jot down some ideas we noted today:
- radio play aspect (afs mentioned situation moves into darkness or near dark on stage, becomes about not the obvious physical high energy "aggression" but about really listening and noticing to the smallest of things... going on; nadia mentioned radio show aspect)
- statue pulling down on stage
- "aggression": is the term 'right' for what we are busy with? -- violence of the state/system is closer
- working in georgia to see/experience actual situation/violence there
- working in america to see/experience how actual situation/violence is just under the surface
- link of stalin and current neo-liberal state (hidden and "official") violence
- chomsky/groyz observation that stalin/soviet system and american/international corporate liberal-humanist societies work(ed) very similarily. both are largely determined by elites exploiting the everyday people. afs had some reservations with this, as he thinks that the bourgoise revolution in the west has chaotic elements which are in a way creative in capitalism and which do not fully remain determined by a stable and consistent elite in the usual sense of the term.
- chomsky observation that actually post-war period (under rule of american & nato alliance in cold war with soviet hegemony) has been more violent world-wide then ww1 and ww2 combined
- afs wonders about how exhaustion works in the construction of state power. the overload works to make "political solutions" (which are not really at all) become 'effective'.. a kind of melodrama perhaps...
there is another level i am somewhat concerned with.... because this is true: "precisely because the system is demented, yet works very well at the same time"... in other words, the whole weirdness of the "system" is that it both makes no sense and is in fact crazy, YET it works well all the time. Take the stock market or say the Iraq War. The stock market: it is possible to study it, to learn quite a lot and to make it work in a way for you. Not just for individuals but in fact big big money the world over does just this. Whether it is aggressively managing funds or very conservatively or like Soros utilizing pretty radical theories of how you 'play' the market, nonetheless it is both reasonable to do so and on another level completely nutty. It is high risk all the time. And at a certain level this makes no sense whatsoever. And here is the thing: nonetheless it works. It continues to produce itself and to produce wealth and loss, etc. Same we could say with the Iraq War. There are hardly any americans now who think it was not manipulated and unjustified, itself. A big disaster and tragedy. And that popular feeling about it came to be the case about mid-way, yet it was not stopped or radically reduced then. It had to continue for various reasons...
the point is that wherever we are, we are in the middle... and this middle involves being in this somewhat schizophrenic reality that the 'system' is both completely not-working (and mad) yet works all the time, and not just as insanity, but rather has a kind of 'sense' to it... a melodrama in a way...
so i think its a mistake to aim to be Super Rational ourselves.... rather i think we have to deal with this strange schizophrenic, delirious state per se, as such... even in the mapping that we may get into.. we cannot entirely be outside this... delirium... we are inside it too! no different then anyone else that way! further do shed any light on the situation by aiming to be outside it.... ? I think we might reveal more by looking into, and in a way being in (performatively) the inside...
the point is that wherever we are, we are in the middle... and this middle involves being in this somewhat schizophrenic reality that the 'system' is both completely not-working (and mad) yet works all the time, and not just as insanity, but rather has a kind of 'sense' to it... a melodrama in a way...
so i think its a mistake to aim to be Super Rational ourselves.... rather i think we have to deal with this strange schizophrenic, delirious state per se, as such... even in the mapping that we may get into.. we cannot entirely be outside this... delirium... we are inside it too! no different then anyone else that way! further do shed any light on the situation by aiming to be outside it.... ? I think we might reveal more by looking into, and in a way being in (performatively) the inside...
about mapping... as an art practice
this is the artist that Badiou used as a paradigm example.
the key concept of the exploded view .... is a kind of diagram
an exploded view (the term for a diagram that reveals how the different parts fit together but seperates them out so that you can visualize it, three-dimensionally). like this:
or this
nonetheless the exploded view concept-- its actual manifestation (in art practice) can be rather abstract or absurd (unlike Lombardi's work which is pretty much very informative tho the results are done in a highly aesthetic way) one might say...it doesn't have to be literal or totally informative-bound (i.e. didactic) itself... but rather can be more weird and funky i think... more 'personal'... but still driving towards this conceptual approach (of mapping, of making connections...)... also funny!
for example, here is something of an example of this approach to revealing connections... its an art installation... with a humorous, funky touch, no doubt. yet i find it gets you thinking (note the use of weird asian motifs, etc. etc.-- it becomes about how basic needs [i.e. water] is distributed-- who rules that, how that is manifest... etc. etc. )
and i think this kind of thing (the exploded view or the effort to reveal connections as such) has been in art for some time... so its not exactly brand new... but to work it now and with a more focused approach to this kind of exploded view concept of organizing is the difference... it creates a way to think about how things are connected, without becoming didactic exactly...
for example this to me is something of a precursor to this thinking/appraoch. its a still from a comedy silent film from like 1918, by a french comedian. i am going to see today btw the movie.
or in a way, the futurists and the russian constructivists were also exploring this in a way... its quite different in certain key ways, but there is an element of this taking it apart to see how it works in relation to parts (its not quite deconstruction per se) aspect..
Currently, to me, this relates very closely to Actor Network theory developments and Object Oriented Ontology (or Speculative Realism) new turns in philosophy. which i am very much intrigued with, inspired by and have been following in their development for some time now...
Anyhow... nuff said for now!..
 |
| by Mark Lombardi. more information about him here |
the key concept of the exploded view .... is a kind of diagram
an exploded view (the term for a diagram that reveals how the different parts fit together but seperates them out so that you can visualize it, three-dimensionally). like this:
or this
nonetheless the exploded view concept-- its actual manifestation (in art practice) can be rather abstract or absurd (unlike Lombardi's work which is pretty much very informative tho the results are done in a highly aesthetic way) one might say...it doesn't have to be literal or totally informative-bound (i.e. didactic) itself... but rather can be more weird and funky i think... more 'personal'... but still driving towards this conceptual approach (of mapping, of making connections...)... also funny!
for example, here is something of an example of this approach to revealing connections... its an art installation... with a humorous, funky touch, no doubt. yet i find it gets you thinking (note the use of weird asian motifs, etc. etc.-- it becomes about how basic needs [i.e. water] is distributed-- who rules that, how that is manifest... etc. etc. )
 |
| From New Museum exhibition up now |
and i think this kind of thing (the exploded view or the effort to reveal connections as such) has been in art for some time... so its not exactly brand new... but to work it now and with a more focused approach to this kind of exploded view concept of organizing is the difference... it creates a way to think about how things are connected, without becoming didactic exactly...
for example this to me is something of a precursor to this thinking/appraoch. its a still from a comedy silent film from like 1918, by a french comedian. i am going to see today btw the movie.
or in a way, the futurists and the russian constructivists were also exploring this in a way... its quite different in certain key ways, but there is an element of this taking it apart to see how it works in relation to parts (its not quite deconstruction per se) aspect..
Currently, to me, this relates very closely to Actor Network theory developments and Object Oriented Ontology (or Speculative Realism) new turns in philosophy. which i am very much intrigued with, inspired by and have been following in their development for some time now...
Anyhow... nuff said for now!..
The Anchor and the Madness
I am re-reading our posts on the blog and thinking about what we have explored and touched on....
one of the things that comes to me in this is a kind of two poled structure... (but i don't want to make that heavy... its not a key to it all, but rather just something I am noticing that has evolved in how we are searching into this)....
i will call it the Anchor and the Madness
the Anchor is the location/presence/activity/'reason' of Being Rational, of Being Sane, of Being "Normal", etc.
and the Madness is the location of all That-Cannot-Be-Expressed-In-The-State, all that is Weird, all that is Not-Normal, all that is Angry, "Aggressive", etc.
The Anchor provides distance, safety, common-sense, perhaps even the fold and inter-personal dynamics of an imagined community, it provides a good virtuality, a space where we can all 'come-together' and feel ok (not nervous, not too overwhelmed), etc.
The Madness is a space 'outside' this field that the Anchor argues is always-there. The Madness defies the Anchor.
The Anchor must struggle with the Madness...to find good reason, to re-assure, to be here/now in Good Sense...
and at moments these cross into strange new re-surfaces.... where both share the stage... in the spectacle...
and at times, now, these are given expression in simple pulp fiction "good vs. evil" manifestations
and this western tendency to split the difference, to create absolute poles.... is not always in the world the 'norm'.... often, in places like africa, the good vs. evil expression (in the realm of fiction, play, etc.) is not so strictly bound, but rather a different horizon of possibilities and relations, in a certain way... the role of shaman, of festivals, of durative fictional plays is quite different...
one of the things that comes to me in this is a kind of two poled structure... (but i don't want to make that heavy... its not a key to it all, but rather just something I am noticing that has evolved in how we are searching into this)....
i will call it the Anchor and the Madness
the Anchor is the location/presence/activity/'reason' of Being Rational, of Being Sane, of Being "Normal", etc.
and the Madness is the location of all That-Cannot-Be-Expressed-In-The-State, all that is Weird, all that is Not-Normal, all that is Angry, "Aggressive", etc.
The Anchor provides distance, safety, common-sense, perhaps even the fold and inter-personal dynamics of an imagined community, it provides a good virtuality, a space where we can all 'come-together' and feel ok (not nervous, not too overwhelmed), etc.
The Madness is a space 'outside' this field that the Anchor argues is always-there. The Madness defies the Anchor.
The Anchor must struggle with the Madness...to find good reason, to re-assure, to be here/now in Good Sense...
and at moments these cross into strange new re-surfaces.... where both share the stage... in the spectacle...
and at times, now, these are given expression in simple pulp fiction "good vs. evil" manifestations
and this western tendency to split the difference, to create absolute poles.... is not always in the world the 'norm'.... often, in places like africa, the good vs. evil expression (in the realm of fiction, play, etc.) is not so strictly bound, but rather a different horizon of possibilities and relations, in a certain way... the role of shaman, of festivals, of durative fictional plays is quite different...
yes/no in private life
i realized after our yes/no exercise that with my ex-b... when i was saying 'yes' i actually meant 'no' and other-way around. i managed today to say 'no' when i mean 'no' and the funny things is that it feels like says 'yes'. may be because i finally said 'yes' to my own wish. again this hidden stuff. i was wondering if this yes/no exercise made me realize this unconsciously. i would love to do it again.
:)
:)
panic attacks
i just found this photo in our file, i didn't remember to have seen it at all.
the system that creates panic attacks and then creates products to fight the panic attack. like a snake that bites itself into the tail.
here is the photo.
madness, hysteria, trauma
i have been watching last week john hustons film- freud: the secret passion. not that it is a great film, as such. but it made me think about traumas, as some kind of physical manifestation of aggression. the rational protection mechanisms hide the actual fact of aggression and what freud did or was trying with psychoanalysis was to uncover the actual cruelty of aggressive act. he asked his patients to go through it again without covering it up. our rational brain and also rational culture can not accept 'the madness' as a real manifestation of aggression. we are afraid of this state of mind, because we can not understand it. therefore covering our own disability of not understanding it we put the problem outside of us, again protection- it's not me who can not understand this, it is the other, who behaves strange. even if this other is myself, we discriminate it, because it doesn't deliver a clear message-, but just a collection of strange sounds and alogical behavior. and on another hand may be we are afraid to have an attempt to understand this 'other', as then we would be confronted with our own feelings of guilt.
the 'madness' is manifestation of taboos, - i think of bataille. and i think of artoud again- who puts different states of mind on an equal importance. he doesn't put the rational over irrational, as well as other-way around.
when i think about my family - earlier i was always mad about how many hysterical scenes we had at home and lot's of dramas.while being in the west i was ashamed of my family, because i thought we couldn't deal with problems in rational ways. yet, now my opinion about it has changed- i think the most important think that my family gave me was this- taking seriously the 'madness', as manifestation of the pain in myself. i don't think anybody was conscious about it, but this helped us to stay vulnerable and honest to ourselves in times of a huge lies in the society. even if financially we were not realized and repressed by the system, emotionally we survived through the times of lies. there was a gerogian philosopher merab mamardashvili http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merab_Mamardashvili
he wrote somewhere- i say it with my words- that the only possibility to stay normal within soviet lies is actually be 'mad'. which i read like, being 'mad' is a state in which you at least resist the system and the lies. so it is another argument of resisting the 'take it easy' approach. when a child is crying hysterically - the worst thing you can do to him, i think is - ignore his state of hysteria, he will learn to deal with his yelling that he can not reach by that anything from his parents, but he will also learn to repress his own pain. the only thing you can do as a parent is take it seriously, give it time to calm down and give the feeling of trust to the person that he will be heard. - he can do it. and not 'don't cry baby, nothing happened really blabla. there is always a reason and this reason has to be named in order to overcome it.
to be continued
:)
the 'madness' is manifestation of taboos, - i think of bataille. and i think of artoud again- who puts different states of mind on an equal importance. he doesn't put the rational over irrational, as well as other-way around.
when i think about my family - earlier i was always mad about how many hysterical scenes we had at home and lot's of dramas.while being in the west i was ashamed of my family, because i thought we couldn't deal with problems in rational ways. yet, now my opinion about it has changed- i think the most important think that my family gave me was this- taking seriously the 'madness', as manifestation of the pain in myself. i don't think anybody was conscious about it, but this helped us to stay vulnerable and honest to ourselves in times of a huge lies in the society. even if financially we were not realized and repressed by the system, emotionally we survived through the times of lies. there was a gerogian philosopher merab mamardashvili http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merab_Mamardashvili
he wrote somewhere- i say it with my words- that the only possibility to stay normal within soviet lies is actually be 'mad'. which i read like, being 'mad' is a state in which you at least resist the system and the lies. so it is another argument of resisting the 'take it easy' approach. when a child is crying hysterically - the worst thing you can do to him, i think is - ignore his state of hysteria, he will learn to deal with his yelling that he can not reach by that anything from his parents, but he will also learn to repress his own pain. the only thing you can do as a parent is take it seriously, give it time to calm down and give the feeling of trust to the person that he will be heard. - he can do it. and not 'don't cry baby, nothing happened really blabla. there is always a reason and this reason has to be named in order to overcome it.
to be continued
:)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)