Carl Kostyal 1: Mike Bouchet etc
Today I tried a new gallery that seems to have made itself the new "it".
Artists that were showing their work there were Mike Bouchet, big paintings, and Yngve Holen, Katja Novitskova, Pamela Rosenkranz och Timur Si-Qin (mixed media).
And I was struck by the power of hipness, everyone there looked intensely arty, young, blackclad in 90sstyle and hungry for connections and success. I also saw a world famous pop artist there. She seemed tired and vulnerable(?). I hope she is well. Anyhow.
Nothing I saw of the art made me feel anything interesting or think anything new. It all felt flat and pricy. It was decoration for people who like to think they like contemporary art, and the pieces looked like you would have to pay some to get some. I dont know, it felt sort of like stuff you'd find at a fair, and not neccessarily an art fair. Perhaps the art itself was decontextualized and would be more interesting if combined and contextualized differently. Although I must say that the hamburger paintings, when seen together like this just felt slapstick hipster. Oh so that someone could have an oil painting of their favorite burger on the wall? How anti-establishment.... how in the face of established traditions and more deep-going values.
I was also struck by the perfection and expense in the sheer material and method, the slick finish the works had made me think of design and industrial design. There seemed to have been an idea and then a luxurious "print out", and the distance between the artist as maker and the work was remarkable.
I dont know actually who has made these pieces (but one of the names above I gather). If anything I liked those above, and the lizard baby (see below). I like the form, although the hearts were a bit over the top (middle pic) and the material. But the fact that the materials are so expensive and the method so clean feels a bit, over-invested somehow. The same value in as out. Does that make sense? Seen like this, on the computer screen I like them better. Odd, dont know why.
And the lizard.
Lizard: Its printed on metal (aluminium?), very neatly, reflected the light awesome, but the same as above, it feels very pricy, targeted directly toward a more wealthy strata and almost like something you would find on a industrial design fair to draw peoples attention.
Hm.
The whole thing also felt very unpolitical. Almost void on and standpoint for anything.
Stockholm
150509
On gender normativity and children
One thought that I had in a conversation recently
A) The most dominant approach (today, in Sweden, at least superficially) to children seems to be to encourage them in their interests and support them in making their own decisions.
To create space for the individual choice would be the way to freedom, also in terms of creating a more equal society- simply let everyone be exactly who they want from the start. It is good!
B) But assuming society isnt a blank slate, these children make their individual choices within a preexisting system of however subtle rewards and punishments.
C) Children copy and adapt. They will make active choices towards the pre-existing roles because that is still the norm, that behavior is still rewarded (the secret pride that the child "chose the right thing" despite the given "freedom"), and few actually want want to stick out, be different. Also very few dare to stick out and be different should they not identify with x role. Not because they are scared to do differently, but they are scared to be excluded.
D) If we really want things to change, ie mens violence towards women, equality in wages, freedom for men to spend more time with their children and so on and forth, we need to realize that we can't rely on the individual choice to produce changes on a larger scale.
E) Its connects to a sort of "dumping" of responsibility for necessary changes in regards to the environmental crisis, gender system and other important issues in our time.
F) It seems as if either the underlying idea is that we are born pure good and naturally inclined to strive for peace and wealth for everybody. Letting people choose freely would create the society of peace and happiness for everyone. Or, that whatever people choose when they choose "freely" is stated to be best for everyone, the natural state, they chose it themselves.
G) Im an anarchist, not interested in any body making my decisions for me. But being free and doing the right thing isn't easy, because society isn't a blank slate.
F) Society isn't a blank slate and the behavior rewarded isn't necessarily that which is "right".
Stockholm
150503
A) The most dominant approach (today, in Sweden, at least superficially) to children seems to be to encourage them in their interests and support them in making their own decisions.
To create space for the individual choice would be the way to freedom, also in terms of creating a more equal society- simply let everyone be exactly who they want from the start. It is good!
B) But assuming society isnt a blank slate, these children make their individual choices within a preexisting system of however subtle rewards and punishments.
C) Children copy and adapt. They will make active choices towards the pre-existing roles because that is still the norm, that behavior is still rewarded (the secret pride that the child "chose the right thing" despite the given "freedom"), and few actually want want to stick out, be different. Also very few dare to stick out and be different should they not identify with x role. Not because they are scared to do differently, but they are scared to be excluded.
D) If we really want things to change, ie mens violence towards women, equality in wages, freedom for men to spend more time with their children and so on and forth, we need to realize that we can't rely on the individual choice to produce changes on a larger scale.
E) Its connects to a sort of "dumping" of responsibility for necessary changes in regards to the environmental crisis, gender system and other important issues in our time.
F) It seems as if either the underlying idea is that we are born pure good and naturally inclined to strive for peace and wealth for everybody. Letting people choose freely would create the society of peace and happiness for everyone. Or, that whatever people choose when they choose "freely" is stated to be best for everyone, the natural state, they chose it themselves.
G) Im an anarchist, not interested in any body making my decisions for me. But being free and doing the right thing isn't easy, because society isn't a blank slate.
F) Society isn't a blank slate and the behavior rewarded isn't necessarily that which is "right".
Stockholm
150503
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)