Rikey Mikey Choke a Likey

“What you do speaks so loud that I cannot hear what you say.” -Ralph Waldo Emerson

Here is a video I watched which basically seeks to share statistics regarding pornography on the Internet in a fun way.  What is interesting is that the video’s method of showing itself borders on pornography!  I am not sure whether the video was made to combat pornography or simply as a tongue in cheek project… but if it was made to question pornography, I wonder whether such a method is affective. 

A part of me admires the idea of a pornographic movie that could question the very medium it employs… but a part of me also says, wait – Can a pornographic movie or a violent movie or a sexist movie or a racist movie, even if made as a satirical, ironical gesture, really serve any other purpose than to inevitably further what it questions in a roundabout way?  I realize that such things intend to shock us, the viewer, into realization… but what happens when such shock wears?  Where do we draw the line?  The proliferation of such into the imagination of the whole….it seems a devolution.  We are constantly affected by what we see, whether we like it or not…. think about cigarettes in cinema for example….even if I put a cigarette into the hands of the most despicable character, even if I show him dying in grotesque manner, the cigarette is still glorified in some manner…. and so it is with the gun or the abusive or the discriminatory.  Even if I film or show the most atrocious act, in some manner, the filming of it, if done well, makes it beautiful…. and I think sometimes there is a  subconscious transference.  So perhaps the answer is to make a truly bad movie about bad things… but then no one will watch it!

at the same time, I realize flaws in my logic… I understand the other side… and, almost absurdly, it makes just as much sense! Maybe more!  Its funny…..there is so much information… and everything can be made to seem feasible… and because of this, it seems I’m often paralyzed into inaction; really, it is a brilliant form of control, that gives the controlled the pretense of control through the facade of knowledge…. to think too much, and do too little.

“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -Socrates

 

Urinal.

The artist himself may not think he is religious, but if he is sincere his sincerity in itself is religion. - Emily Carr

It interests me that throughout history where religion has been, art also has always necessarily followed (whether it be Russian propaganda films, Byzantine icons, or the Sistine Chapel).  I am not a religious person, in the sense that I do not subscribe to any one conventional “religious” system, but strangely, I would still consider myself “religious.”  That is, I have strong beliefs… even if I am not always fully aware of them; I have conviction, even if I am not always sure how to act.  Emily Carr wrote that “the artist himself may not think he is religious, but if he is sincere his sincerity in itself is religion,” and I relate strongly to that.  Religion is not in a word or a symbol, a painting or a speech, it lives always in one’s own beliefs.

What concerned me most while working on this piece was that very question of belief.  I am at a point in my life where conviction seems a tricky, fickle thing – but an absolutely necessary thing nonetheless.

Just recently, during a media history screening, a film called “Armageddon” was shown.  I found it strange how so many people left, and of the few who did remain, many of them did so only to laugh derogatively at the movie.  I can understand this, I too felt an almost instant sense of…. superiority.  But why?  When judgment comes so easy, it is usually a sign that ignorance is near.  If it is wrong for a “common” person to quickly pass something off as “artsy,” how is it right to pass of another as “commercial?”  Perhaps it is a question of semantics, perhaps not, but I honestly feel that their is worth to be had, knowledge to be learned, in everything, regardless of intent.  An open mind is acceptance, it is strange that in an art school there seems to be so little of it.

“Bad art is always more tragically beautiful than good art because it documents human failure.”

I understand that the backlash is against certain conventions, and blind, ideologically irresponsible decisions (made in the film)…. but, I think, what people fail to recognize is that very reaction is itself convention.  We are spurred by a collective unity.  In this way, “art” is no less a mindless system of thought than, say, Religion or Commercialism, Consumerism or Communism (the “bad” kind).  Like these things, art too seems to have a system of almost taboo arbitrary codes; ways we should think, talk, look, act. What I strive to remember is that this collective identity of “art” has, in fact, absolutely nothing to do with art – Being an “artist” has always been after the fact.

There seems to be a misconceived notion that conviction, belief, and confidence require solidity and foundation… while they ARE a necessary foundation, they should not borrow the connotations of that word.  Belief should never be nailed to the ground, conviction never cemented, rather, they should be in constant negotiation.  Uncertainty is the Mother of all things beautiful and pure. Belief, conviction, confidence – these are things that should be founded on an ocean of constant change.  When judgment is passed without question, judgment should be brought to trial. 

In my piece, formalistically, all in all, there are 10 religions referenced (Christianity [Holy Cross], Judaism [Magden David], Sikhism [Sword, Dagger and Shield], Taoism [Tai-Chi, Yin-Yang], Buddhism [The Dhammachakka], Hinduism [OM], Islam [Crescent and Star], Indigenous Religions [The Quartered Circle], Confucianism [The Trigram], and Jainism [The Swastik Chakra], centered around an outline of Michel Duchamp’s, “Fountain.”  Below is an idea for where I would like to put it and how it would look (though I would be open to other suggestions.)  The only thing I am concerned about is whether the detail within the circle is too fine…. in which case I could take away one of the duplicates and enlarge it (though that would omit Toaism…)… I’ve attached the alternative as well.