Wednesday, January 17, 2007

The lie about the Metapor

The metaphor is something I find using addictively. The very first element of work seems to be spawned by patternless inspiration. A line, a technology, a movie, anything I want to interpret. But after this step I constantly feel forced by my European heritage to give this an illusion of "purpose". Everything starts as chaos but ends up in a single idea which can tell us all a lesson. There are many sides to this. For one I wonder why we use art to lie for our self in this culture. Why do we suddenly identify with thoughts that we usually see as naive or just wrong when they're brought in the world of art? Are we really just so plain stupid that we can't separate the message from the messenger? Is left side of our brains, the rational, so dominant that only when we are exposed for explosions and noise the right side is invited for its opinion. And then we start see patterns, a whole. PURPOSE *judgement quire voice*.

So I start to make up a story, how the red spots I thought I thought looked cool against a green surface really are the disease which spreads unless the humanity/environment don't find protection. It's really mumbo gumbo but I've decided there is no reason to fight it, it's a tool to find new concepts which may even for the viewer feel continuous.

But in the end, fuck purpose. What's so unique with working with my own artistic ambitions is I create a subjective importance. I am an atheist and accept my objective pointlessness but still, knowing that, I say that I feel that doing this is important for me and it's worth the time. I think most creative people would agree in this. Nevertheless, when the director is interviewed, the rock artist stands offstage or the artist in front of his finished work, it's all of a sudden all about WHY he/she did, not how or what it looks like or what is next. The forum of art- the culture pages, the "DVD extra material" is so filled with this talk that when the artists themselves takes part of it the metaphor was all of a sudden the purpose of the work. Yes, the stair in a building may been an expression of "human ambition" from the architect. Yes, the red lamp may been a symbol of warning when the evil character enters. No, it doesn't matter. This dissection of art may be a "creative" approach from the viewer, the problem is that the one doing this the most is not the common viewer but the reviewers and the know hows. The people who is supposed to have the most objective opinion are so objective that they don't even see the actual work, for them the work is a language meant to be deciphered to then extract the message and then he (usually a he, isn't it) can go around on the mingle party and feel proud of how he understands art like no other. Weird thing is, I have a hunch that the one reviewing art isn't the same guys who's creating it. Not that I care much about reviewers, I'm just disappointed in how little creativity there is in the art forums I've found so far.

That said, the events: A tree releasing a abstract looking fruit, fruit falling, falling falling, some inner motion hints development. It seems to fall on a green nice looking platform but by chance bounces off, keeps falling. Through thick clouds and deeper into darkness it falls until its dark as a cave and the light that comes through are filtrated to blue cold beams. the seed falls in thick puddle of oil like substance, black and all you see is the shiny reflections. Patterns are being created by a beat that seems to come from underground. The seed has now developed to a abstract little buggy creatures that moves to the music, it constantly has to escape the jaws that's coming from below the surface. Similar bugs join him from above, some of them are less lucky and being swallowed by the evil mouths. The terror continues until a group of them kills a mouth and then other follow the example. Leaving some kind of better world for the things (maby will call them "blimps"?). The end is a bit simplified so far, need to think about it.

And the metaphor: The underestimated impact of chaos that is distorting the justice in the pursuit of the "American dream". In other words, how we say that every one's life is a creation of their efforts without taking their start position or effect of chance into account. The practice of this narrow minded view is that we remove the safety net for people in need, leaving a divided society who thinks everything is as it should be. The only chance for the losers in this system is to first realise that they don't deserve their position and second that their strength grows with their numbers. But it's all really about cool images and sounds.

1 comment:

krute said...

You're definitely right, in the sense that interpretations created and pasted upon the work by the reviewer and/or the inner critic do more harm than good. But that just shows the importance of having a framework upon which the viewer can understand art.
The problem as I see it is that more often than not, this framework is hidden or obstructed by the artist on purpose. Maybe they feel is not sophisticated enough, or that they actually consider it their hidden trick of the trade or something, but many artists are reluctant to reveal too much of the process that lead to the specific piece of art in question. But ask any artist about the concept, or the goal or whatever question, that by answering only will become even more vague, you'll get plenty a reply. But prepare to get bullshitted.
By the way, I guess that the more money there is involved, the more this holds true.

Note that we don't include viewers that actually have insight enough to actually meditate on the work as is, pondering no further questions. These seem to be rarely stumbled upon though, since they probably rather wander around the Himalayas than browse youtube.

Now in my opinion, the obvious solution is to make the process of creating art transparent, i.e. letting the process in it self be an art work, and let concepts show through, not only after but during and maybe even before the work is created. It cannot only be I that find it ridicolous to read under paintings and other (new)media, stuff like "inkjet printed on paper, 30x30 cm" or whatever. As if the actual process of printing would be of any interest, rather which algorithms or or other framework that were present. (Yes, we are talking digitally created art here...).

It might also not be the best way to view things, but certainly more transparent, demystifying and maybe even more fascinating way.
The work itself might even become something worthwhile.