Talking heads

I've found these guys on the youtube recently. Actually they are two very noble men - Bryan Magee and Micheal Ayers.
And yes, I did watch the whole show, and I recommend it as a breakfast TV substitute. I feel it needs some kind of explanation. First of all it really is useful to dig out some basics about the key philosophers from time to time. The other thing is that I can't resist the charm of this style (that I suppose was a norm in the British TV in the 60's). The only other place I can find it right now is the Monty Python's Flying Circus, but it's so much more amusing when it's for real. And after all who said that it's always got to be sparkling, vivid, ridiculously colorful, intellectually reversing, childish and with no message whatsoever? Let them speak. Bon appetite!

here's the trailer (to see the next parts follow the links at the end of the video)

"art is one of the branches of mathematics, like any other science"

These are Rodchenko's word from 1921. Moreover through his works he seems to say that everything should be subjected to mathematics, as it is the ultimate law in the universe.
I envy him and find it very scary.
Once again I'll refer to childhood ideological trauma. I used to seek for the field that would be the one and only most important ever always. The plan was to find it and then become a specialist in its scope. That would be logical - as at the moment I know there is only one life, I shouldn't waste it for something not hyper-important. As a hard-working twelve-year-old I began to think. After a thorough analysis, I figured out that physics are the science I'm looking for. Law of physics rule the whole universe, so can anything be more powerfull than that?
Then I began to read and count and learn by heart all that I should know as the best living physicist ever. I don't remeber what came first - wheter I found out that I am not good enough to be the next Hawking already, or that it is not the most important field of life after all. What followed it was a yet another breakdown. Luckily there is no most important thing or idea whatsoever, and if there was, physics woudn't be it. I can find pleanty of examples where the laws of physics are absolutely ignored.
What would that have to do with the 20's in ZSRR?
The thing is that I have the impression that Rodchenko didn't give up. His world of number, shapes and colors was absolute, because it was subordinated by the absolute law of mathematics. The only thing he had to do is remove the element of emotional expression of personality. Well, everything becomes more harmonious when you get rid of the human factor. I look at the shades of his installations and I'm full of exaltation and anxiety.

For those who are in Barcelona at the moment, his works are in La Pedrera until 5 January 2009.

Down to earth

With my proneness to consider things in abstract terms I think it's healthy to make a paradigm shift from time to time, and listen to somebody who embeds ideas in material world. I've recently found a fragment of George Lakoff speech on how metaphors are actually physically created in the mind. Very convincing argument I must say:



It must also have something to do that middle-aged men with a beard, and clear calm witty speech, do seem trustworthy. I wonder how this metaphor was created...
This is a fragment of a longer lecture that Lakoff made on his book "The Political Mind". He explains the conceptual frames our brains work on and comments mechanisms of political views. Here's the recording of the whole session in New York. Worth taking into critical consideration:

it was a rainy sunday...

We'll be twelve forever

Why do people long for their childhood so much? I suppose I'm not wrong saying, that it's because they miss the times of not knowing certain stuff. The lawful ignorance, careless and jolly, makes the meeting with facts especially rough. You realize that knowledge is one of the things that sticks to you the more, the more you want to get rid of it. The awareness that there's now way back made me an existentialist and ridiculously serious kid at some point. One of these awkward moments were when I confronted with a unpleasant fact, was when I had a phase of inventing stuff. These weren't of course any hi-tech ideas, but I was quite proud of them. And each time I presented colorful scheme of some device, my father honestly informed, that though it is a smart and pretty thing, it has been done before. People already use it, the same or similar concept has been maintained for decades or even centuries. The bitter disappointment of those moments sometimes returns when I read or hear thoughts that I was sure were my own. When I was twelve I thought this is the perfect age. You are not a total kid any more, you are capable to understand some complex issues, but you are not yet a freaky teenager or grumpy grownup. I wished it would last for ever. It might have been the point when I knew enought to think that everything is comprehendible, but not enough to realize that there's a never ending space of the unknown that can make you feel dizzy and insecure. Then after years that eventually have past I've seen a document about Michel Gondry, called "I've been 12 forever". Shoot. Again. It wasn't so bad, as I like him a lot, so somehow I explained to myself that it's even fine that a real film director repeats your words. So following my private chronology I overcame the disappointment and started to explore the work of my age-buddy. I found out that he made most of the clips I adore, so our bond of sympathy had grown as that was a proof of his good taste. For instance, here's a result of his cooperation with Bjork:



Gondry made 7 clips for her- big respect.He reveals also other values of Being Twelve. He follows his surrealistic ideas, makes them live, doesn't care that something can't be done, he just does it. And each time I see his video I have the feeling that he actually had fun when he worked on it. The twelvish innocent hedonism - very rare, and how precious!



I love it, it's like dreaming. What would of course be an allusion to his full-length films, Oscar, fame, pride, prestige, and all the rest which I won't mention because this would evaluate to a Gondry-dedicated vlog, what it's not. Anyhow what could one accuse him of is that he sold himself to the commercial business somehow. He made loads of advertismemnts for the biggest companies. But I would fight for him, for me it's a good thing that Gondry actually makes something valuable for masses. For me it's more like a subliminal aesthetic education - very noble when you think about all the junk that's on tv. Just to present a drop from the ocean, here's on of his adds:



Well then. Frankly I don't feel bad about our redundant thought anymore. This didn't brake me, I keep on inventing, I've just moved to a more abstract register. And after all, I simply couldn't get cross with someone with a french accent.

The Barney Body

The most spectacular video art performer I can think of is Matthew Barney. But it would be injurious to define him only with those two words. He is beyond one form, closer to Wagner's Gesamtkunstwerk, the modern "enfant terrible", by some called the single revival of baroque. In this case one Barney would be enough to resurrect a whole epoch. The American Newsweek called him the representative of androgyny and new decadence. He is the only living artist who had a retrospective exhibition in the prestigious Guggenheim Museum Soho. He uses his body as instrument of creative act, exposing it to extreme conditions. Fighting with his weaknesses, straining the will enlocked in the Barney Body, he beats inconceivable limits and opposes matter.

What fascinates me the most is his best known Cremaster Cycle. This is a series of five films produced with amazing precision in a enormous scale. Though they can only be seen on screenings chosen by the author himself, usually in art galleries. There are very few copies of it and one limited edition of the third part which is possible to purchase. You can't actually say anything about the films, as they generate their own visual language through which Barney creates his mythology. There is no story whatsoever, it's more like watching someone's hallucinations, so disturbing and inspirating that you want the hours spent in front of the screen to last forever. Barney comments that through this cycle he is trying to find the space of freedom, place between form and its lack, catching the moment, in which reality isn't precisely defined yet.

To take a closer look on the Cremaster cycle, you can visit the official website or watch some fragments of the work, as few of them floating in the web. But it is harmfull for the piece, unless you have a huge white wall to screen it on. Here is the official trailer:

Manifesto vs. Motto

"reality is a nice place to visit, but I wouldn't like to live there"

It's obvious there's no objective version. But since the 60's it's officially shameless to repeat. Since there is no novelty and yet nothing is coherent enough to believe in, anxiety and excitement accompanies every movement. It allows to FRee the Reality and FRy the Facts with impunity. Which I suppose this all mess would be about. The area on which one does it most openly is art. For practical reasons. We know what would happen if everybody dropped the common official paradigm. But lets not bother and enjoy this cozy field of freedom. And focus on something - let's say something visual. For instance, what is most genius about film, speaking in general terms, is that it gives the illusion of dipping into the artist's senses. Somehow it gives nearly physical access to his version of reality. Sounds like a surprisingly optimistic unity-technique of eye-to-eye interpretation. And when I think about it, I feel my eyes are more ME than my toes, or even ears. I'll drop that now. As order turns out to be handy sometimes, this is what I will stick to: any anti- or hyper-realistic and esthetic or interesting creation chosen with the help of my arbitrary taste present at the day of posting.