- We live in the world of the Market and its crisis with no solution. Immersed in a self-praise monologue, an uninterrupted speech that the Market makes on itself. Like the prisoners of the story "In the Penal Colony"by Kafka, we are stuck in a machine that engraves the Law all over our body.
- We believe that artistic research is the false consciousness of those who can not take advantage of the Market, but only suffer it. Even those who spit on art, who theorize about its end, or who are very pure and socially committed, in the end enjoy it by going if they can into a small gallery, in a unknown collection, to a peripheral theater.
- We are against any romantic idea about art. We hate the genius and unruliness, the prophetic artist, poses as an artist. Genius is rigorous and does what he can. We hate eternity and we are for the ephemeral. Only the things that pass are those that remain. We prefer to think of our work on the shelf of a bathroom rather than in a large museum.
- 1. We believe that contemporary art has no ontological knowledge of itself, but is only technical, instrumental and procedural, and that puts its greatest commitment into relathionships and technical and operational effectiveness. The greatest merit of today's artist is in removing the shame and the pride of art, denying to himself and to his work a horizon of truth. No one today can seriously imagine that art will save the world, nor understand life or replace it. This is our conquest of freedom, immersed in the Market.
- We are not interested in taste, sensitivity and culture because we are not interested in the narrow circles, art lovers, beautiful magazines. We are interested in talking to many people, staying on the street, being accessible to all. We do not care about elevated discussions, we are interested in selling. But the two things coincide in the Market. Against any type of intellectualism, the immediate sensitivity is our land and the Market is our language.
- To reach everyone we accept the Market forms of communication, to profit from our work we adapt to the image of thedominant. We want to describe as simply as possible, cynically, what is around us, which we breathe from our birth: the Market. What our Customers do does not interest us. If it is used for their own pleasure, to praise the market or to counter-attack it, or if it is used to prop up a table or cover a stain on the wall, or as an ashtray, we do not care.
- We want to be in the Market like fish in water and claim that we do not to want to hide this, it’s our choice. We are prepared to contradict ourselves, not delude ourselves.
Sketch of family
But this unhappiness becomes violent . The family today is such a place of oppression and violence. Most violence against women, as the bishops of the triveneto says: mothers and daughters, takes place in the fence. Peppa Pig is a children's cartoon . The most famous . They all have symbols of modernity : mobile phones, cars, etc. . But the family structure back to a reassuring past that most families no longer live . Nor do we see other families . Our horoscope for today on the Italian sportive Journal says: " you have two Zebedee meloniformi . And that has pig 's flavor. " Where is this representation ? Daddy Pig still reads the newspaper sports , like any good householder. Paolo Poli says he does not love feelings . He Enjoy , what a great gentleman , meetings Cossack , inside a doorway. For the origin of the ' Ndrangheta is referred to three Spanish knights , Bone, and Mastrosso Carcagnosso , that to avenge the honor of his sister kill a man. At the end of the detention they ripen the rules of honor and the code of silence that constitute "company" and will mark the future Italian mafia and criminal organizations are divided: Bone merge Cosa Nostra, Mastrosso the ' Ndrangheta in Calabria and the Camorra in Naples Carcagnosso . All three are based on families. Why Grandpa Pig does not deal with tax evasion ? And Daddy pig like beating her mother? George , brother of Peppa , masturbating ?
But why when they do the same, perhaps by introducing a catalog of their shows become "heavy", structured, and when they give their overview of the contemporary feel lighter?
And why our dear philosopher, Agamben, is convincing when as to what the contemporary is, but it turns out if writes about contemporary art?
When he is Writing about a thinker valuable as Sismondi , Marx said , "He judges in a convincing way the contradictions of bourgeois production , but does not understand it ." The contemporary shows , if anything, can be assessed, but you don't investigate it, not understand it . Not because it is incomprehensible , but because it is thrown forward in its objective reality , perhaps, is bound ( a quote does not refuse anyone) but you can not think.
Not only in art, but such policy . Those who do not have better things to do try, as did Alexander Leogrande ( the stranger ) and as we did , to compare two writings that compete with the same thinker nearly 30 years later : Matteo Renzi introduction Right and Left of Bobbio and Bettino Craxi in An Essay on Proudhon (1978). " How it ended the parable craxiana is known to all . But if we were to remain on the only textual aspect ...... well , the comparison is really pitiful . " The difference is not between different levels of quality , but structure and speed , the heaviness and the lightness in the interpretation of decisionism .
Maybe things are deeper . As we are immersed in a joyous or melancholy superficiality, and depth , if anything , appears to be only an interlocking of surfaces. The poor Lukacs , in his bad article, helps us . It takes a learned of his time , Max Weber : economist , sociologist , historian , philosopher and politician. Expert in all , at ease in all fields of art and its history. " And yet there isn't in him, not even the shadow of a true universalism ... because never realized a synthesis of this sociology with this economy and with this history , it was necessary that the separation of these specialist science remained intact even in his head " . How come we are faced with this dissociation ? L. says that the social division of labor not only affects the exploited, but also harnessing . Conditions them , even if their lives are, of course , different .
99 posse says " my head is a hotbed of subversion ." Outbreaks satisfied with uneven move into our brains sprayed from the Market. Could each of us , like say Sir Bradley Wiggins ( a cyclist who won the Tour ) : "I've Always Been a bit of all trades , master of none " ?
Our divided brain also divides languages . Only a language that technically ever more specific , with focused haughtily who reduces its terms, as to become esoteric . Involuntarily arises as understandable to others who speak in the Babel of many microtechniques , incomprehensible to most people. But it 's interesting to be understandable to most people ? Depending on the market . If you want to talk to my equals, then use a language system , if you intend to sell another . From the purity Creole passage is short , millimeters of my brain. The mystery that veils the secret profane its truth , that is the simple life ( Magris ) .
There is some truth in the legend that says that sleeping next to a book, we take their content . We had already written these lines when we happened to read " Heroes and anti-heroes in German art " by Marco Minnini . We quote : " We could say that Feldmann is a mannerist , while Kiefer is the muscular Michelangelo of our times. Medardo Rosso against Rodin. Monsieur Hulot against Schwarzenegger. And of course, an old story : ... David and Goliath . " A text that makes the slight Feldmann collide with the heavy Kiefer . As ever , though, when one of the highest density's works of the heaviness of the hard Anselm , " 7 celestial palaces " , is photographed everything is being done to lighten it ? We thinking the same for a more raw performance that we have seen recently . the video of work could easily be a trailer for a movie with Brad Pitt.
But speaking of lightness , while under our office , a resurgence in the twentieth century offers in library a discussion on Baudelaire , secure heavy, and for us, not to be heavy , it is best to take advantage of today's shining sun .sLight is the slight who does.
In memory of Catherine
It is probably in the Song of Songs is born a woman running through the centuries . The " I am black , but comely " begins a story uninterrupted . "The sons of my mother were angry with me, they put me keeper of the vineyards ; My vineyard , my , I have not kept " And is the mother of many other women . The Melusine , for example , a hybrid between a fairy and a water snake , happiness or destruction in a moment , when we try to understand their nature . Madame Bovary , certainly ( maybe) .
The woman who breaks the chain in the desire of which speaks Deleuze , because there is a multiplicity , a collective event . It is not, as he says D. desiring a set or a set of things to be concatenated. And ' the walk with a laugh , a sadness , a smile , a gesture on the margin between what we understand and what you want . Not both , one or the other. And if you jump off the edge you lose everything .Lady Brett Ashley Fiesta of Hemingway . The Linda 's Companion Pavese . And in a perfect way , and finally visually better , the Catherine of Truffaut's Jules and Jim (1962 ) .
And ' the still image of the face of Catherine suspending the useless chatter of Jules and Jim . And today ? We are reminded of the Helen of Professor of desire to Roth , who also is 77 .
Across the River and Into the Trees:
What we aren't, what we don't want:
We could continue with the Serbian Fanzine , with Australia that has a more interesting booklet of the exhibition etc. But Isn't that the point . We have written about the unread, the never registered. We've seen that there is often no correspondence between these texts and what they should describe, at least for us. But it is a general matter. For example, read the captions inside the exhibits. We are complicit because we found that many texts resemble what we wrote.
Maybe it's worth taking them as works in themselves, as they resemble Kant's water lilies, somehow related to the bottom, to the thing in itself: than is impossible to reach, or we may find it useless to look for a relationship between the flowers on the surface and the their root on the bottom, or we can hope there is a relationship between the two. We believe in the third option, but as a act of extreme confidence.
But Kant never thought anyway, that whatever the roots, even the water lilies bloom.