Cake Design Motor Bike

ART AND SILENCE: THE NONSENSE only chance

Tabula Rasa

Marta Cervera Gallery: from 28/04/1911

(Mathieu K. Abonnenc, Lara Almarcegui, Mark Hagen, Jay Heikes, Joanna Malinowska, Mateo Maté, Clara Montoya, Adolfo Schlosser, Erin Shirreff)

"The real possibility of utopia is joined in a rare summit with the possibility of the disaster. "

Adorno

If reality is always a political decision, think about art is to think of a relationship, of course, policy-with reality and, above all, think about the future. And, at this point, think the future is, first of all, imagine.

... just imagine what more difficult for us to carry out given that policy-and if it is, there is no alternative to the hyper. Benjamin and tried to warn us, while not at all utopian his thought of the need to break or interrupt the continuity between present and future, thus, stimulate progress that had the ability to successfully overcome the enormous power of the system: the knowledge of the future before us. As Jameson argues , "the political function of utopia is to interrupt and / or break our inherited ideas about the future: that future precast break."

therefore need to rethink the patent in political terms, the reality is cut off from root to this power of divination, almost shamanic, the system knows just what will be the future even before us. The game balancing, yet so that it is almost indecipherable, is glaring and well noticeable, having replaced the conatus of Spinoza the libidinal wish is now that each person-each individual-is persevering in what he wants and, more precisely, what the system do you want. The mapping is clear, the topography of desire of the good work and well-laid rails on which it is impossible to derail. Deleuze would say , the effect precedes the cause.

So, our reality is just sad and bleak: either we are unable to imagine a better future ( Jameson), or the only thing we can imagine is the disaster (Sontag ).

In this situation, the art emphasizes the need to focus all the time wondering what I could imagine that there are possibilities, "ethical" for the emergence of utopia. If art is and should be-politician is precisely this self-reflexive question that launches itself and it takes place in constant contact with a reality that transforms politically. In recent times, perhaps, also Rancière nothing utopian thinker who has had this clearer relationship Unambiguous-but-with the political problem: "politics is about what we see and what we can say about it, about who has the power to see and to say the quality on the properties of space and potential time ", being, thus, closely linked to specific forms of sharing sensitive powers of each.

As is well known, perform this task has been quite easy to an art that was in representing his greatest ally. Thus, the art has been understood as the place where the order is placed to be memorized. To follow Rancière a little longer or the ethical regime of images, where images were regulated according to their adherence to an ethos generally or in the representative system, supported by the pragmatic principle of mimesis-the art had a problem to run in parallel with the setting of being true to reality. Proof of this is ineffable concepts that until recently functioned as normative for art: authenticity, auratic, etc.

however, was to enter the image-motion scene when the deals of the sensible, then linked to grand narratives, become a wealth of data and information that, until to date, has managed to turn reality into a hiperealidad and presence in a telepresence anchored in the overall time ciberpantalla. If the image-static refers to a definitive ontology for the permanent repetition of his esenciante be always the same, in the time-image, however, is the difference that occurs in the same area of \u200b\u200bthe visual sign. So now, the sign is dislocated, the bracketed reference, the metaphor does not work, just allegory.

So, if reality has been subsumed in process simulation, telepresence and hiperealidad, art has been refer to relations with reality as complicated and sterile, as mentioned above, can barely imagine anything other than the accident, the final catastrophe. If the real is called into question (and not just for the virtuality and simulation, but the Freudian unconscious and Marxism), how can art continue his political work, do not forget this ever-real relationship with that minimized and starving, how can ultimately further their art work in this post-historic era and postutópica?

Obviously, at this point, all questions must be answered with a resounding yes. Because it is right now, now when the real is not just that there is nothing left but even the appearance is now so advanced that allows reflexivity on itself (ie, the ghost of the ghost), when the utopian possibilities of art must ADvenir sobrepotenciadas.

In the limit (again Rancière), if the representation has been misunderstood as a normative principle postulates that allowed-according to their level of similarity with reality-the introduction of a system for art, is now with the dissolution of the 'real' with which bought, when the misunderstanding can be reconfigured and go, once and for all, the core of the purposes pursued by the art. Now, with the final crisis of representation has come to reveal that the representation was not operating as early naive analogy, in short, neither represented nor imitated, or, much less expressed. Now the representation refers to its own event running as a life experience that problematizes human relations / world.

If Baudelaire, a pioneer of modernity, I knew the mission of art was to go to meet the event, now is the actual event which, become real, pile it all.

The possibilities, therefore, are extraordinary, chances of succumbing, they know that the accident will come from the hands of this profusion of images, the crack of the images that would Virilio - or emancipation, they also know that is now in the nullity in which reality has been transformed, when art, moved away from the representation dela congratulations, you can choose to recover as hyper-visual operator. Now, finally, everything is at stake.

In short, it is now when art really treating them with the implementation of the ephemeral moment that brings the time-image (and even digital), burying the root of his concept to the core of their relationship with politics refocusing the vision-the 'acts of seeing' that emphasizes Brea in relation to the 'speech acts' - in relation to the capitalist rationality is weaving a network of possible / impossible to go feeding and forming a field ideological desiring operates by presenting a future as something obvious and agree, can carry out the necessary money to create innovative relationships between past, present and the future.

This exposure Marta Cervera Gallery, entitled ' Tabula rasa' and excellently curated by Francesco Giaveri , some of these assumptions to stand at the 'between' that separates the remembrance of a ancestral home and the anticipation of an apocalyptic future imagined just to match that in this limit, the inframince Duchamp would separate these moments, the differences are rather few, that the irreconcilable contradictions of reality that people refer to a recall where present and in each 'act of seeing' in each artistic experience is tabula rasa.

There is much in these parts Heidegger and interpreting poetic and somewhat irrational exposure. Echoing most of the second period, the understanding of being part of Dasein is given in time and refers to an event by which Dasein be released to instituting an opening in which man comes to terms with himself and with other entities. Thus, the existence of Dasein refers to a dwelling in the event-Ereignis ", at the opening of the being that gives him the understanding of their own existence temporalized. Thus, the experiences of Dasein refers to a recall "Andenken" what has already been continued to allow that to be still open in their understanding enabling clarity.

The past is not only and merely past, but a live broadcast that we are being constantly given and fully articulated three dimensions of temporality of Dasein being open-projects in the future, to be cleared by the clear and that allows us to understand.

So methodologically different, but matching results, Adorno, another insurgent irracionalsimo need for aesthetics, he argues that "being art always refers to what was already opening," postulating that once it's determined where the denial art holds its antinomy foundational art wants and needs to be utopia, but its real functional link the resulting obstacle then that "only through its absolute negativity, the art says the unsayable, utopia."

An art condemned to silence and speechlessness, an art of remembrance, an art ultimately chooses not no more for the emancipation, for it is well known regressive nature of such movements, but be against himself, against his despotic rationality wins against raised in the name of culture, which always is barbarism, which can serve to protect the unnamable that Beckett was thus already , which is not satisfied with the truth, but that combines the look in the direction of Adorno that "art is looking at being unable to escape the suggestion of a meaning in the midst of the foolishness."

Ultimately, perhaps now more than ever and hope for the sake of reconciliation, il faut continuer. Perhaps there pointing to this great exhibition, giving a complete realize that, deep down, there is always a progressive denial of meaning, and only because of this nonsense can still guarantee a hope, a utopia, and thus subvert the time-identical with the hyper capital that aims to seal any future possibility.

Brown Mucus Discharge Mean I Got My Period

MINIMALISM: DESARTIZACIONES LOOK LIKE EFFECT OF GILBERT & GEORGE

JUCHTMANS JUS: BIPOLAR

NIEVES FERNÁNDEZ GALLERY: from 28.04.1911

If you study, so no deep history of contemporary art, you realize, we just have to do their part, the bulk of desartización processes have been focused on just the body or problematize sense has always menso presumably had-to-the lead in this art: the look.

And, if anything has marked the comings and goings in the history of art is the gradual and increasingly clear denigration of sight. As stated by Martin Jay , if anything characterizes the twentieth century is just a hostility toward her, toward the eye.

Since the early avant-garde, the epistemological premise with which to carry out its plan of subversion was posing questions and radicalization by merely looking. Malevich to the head, but also and obviously Cubism, Futurism, plasticimso, etc.

pulling the thread arrived at a time, ours, in which one of the aesthetics of the most powerful resistance is that which is understood as art-blindness, as the art of nullifying the very thing that should in principle be given to the view. Along with that is the whole art of the loss and trauma, the return to the real and recorded by Hal Foster : if the paradox of this not-seeing is that it can not be eliminated altogether, art seems to just be the perfect strategy to get closer to what I could not touch: the Lacanian Real. Eschatological aesthetics of remembrance / regression of children, those who gloss trauma, Teddy would say Castro Flórez, are all aesthetic, in the words of Foster, have dared to tear the screen sieve separated us from the real.

But not to go too far from the topic at hand, if at some point this denigration of the gaze took citizenship card from a theoretical point of view was undoubtedly from the thoughts of Benjamin around the reproducibility technical sense of there knowing a conceptual bond with the political problems in which we still muddy-and without too many overtones of solution, it must be said. According to him, art reproduction brings a new role for art that was annulled and the concept of aura which was based on the entire social fabric of art, is supported within hours of a political function.

The technique, which encourages infinite reproducibility, refers to novel strategies for the artistic from the beginning that are subject to the process of formation and construction of the collective imagination. In this regard, the unconscious optical model is that precisely by the political forces, is what escapes the vision and is therefore subject to various disciplinary regimes. In the words of Benjamin , "What is atrophy in the era of technical reproduction of a work of art is its aura" that is, the look, the premise of the durability of memory as a priori from where the file is built means a society, a culture. From then until Rancière and his thesis according to which all aesthetic regime refers to a particular way of relating the visible, the speakable possible and there is only a small step.

In other words, the separation that operates Freud between unconscious and conscious, Benjamin moved to the problematic view / no-see-dialectic is very dear to art as as we have maintained, is based on many of the processes desartización.

Within this small geneaología we have tried to draw a line rather thick, and attached to the artistic strategies that have emerged in the career, it seems that minimalism is a rarity within the coordinates in which we have moved. For the minimalist, sustained For example in Case LeWitt that what exists is what you see, it seems to be contrary.

But, however, the reality is quite different. Who even today, after which represents a whopping distance of nearly fifty years, argue that minimalism is that movement sterile, unchanging, concerned about the lines and look safe, it is quite confused.

Minimalism is on one hand the formal culmination of modernity but also a reflection on perception and production. If you do not want to make it a series of motifs, which are absolute, minimalism can not be understood as a reductive idealism concerned with deal with the collection of pure forms, but must be understood as a movement capable of breaking the transcendental space to place the viewer in a 'here and now concrete and that suddenly becomes a perception of the work that can be redefined in terms of place and time. Isolating

one hand, the purpose and, secondly, their understanding of contextualization specifying directly with the surrounding space, minimalism will highlight the epistemological and perceptual conditions of the work of art. The difference therefore between considered art or decoration lies in that extra negativity that he carries within him.

But his most radical position is the one that's taken as a move that breaks with the mean mode until then prevailing, which is given as mediated by the intention of a more or less ideological. This is precisely where it carries out its specific negativity. If the mean ideological production was typical of pre-industrial, now sets the stage for a dislocation of the same parameters of significance. It does so by questioning the viewer's perception and expression of the artist. That is, the phenomenology that is meant minimal problematizes as going hand in hand with new modes of signification. This now seems clearer correspondence between minimalism and processes on the table before the problematization of the eye.

In this represents a further step which conceptualism: focusing on the perception can deploy a negativity as questioning the social processes of meaning, while, conversely, conceptualism, going directly to the concept, can not refer only to processes of meaning based on the same structures in the language of art, but not the social cause.

The minimal, on the other hand, renew certain tenets of art and makes self-conscious. Hence it is inferred as an attack involving an art institutions and well conformed. What Dada was noted, but still not got the time not yet fully institutionalized art, minimal succeeds. It was just beyond the limits of a new objectivity posited by the areas of institutionalized art (with Greenberg to mind) how did the coup minimal effect, apparently without going through established channels, go to the other side: the the effectuation of its negativity.

Because it was only in the movement to bypass the limits to appeal to a return of form if you like, in an excess of zeal, as minimalism was able to problematize the processes of perception and meaning. Thus, minimalism, as stated in the hypothesis that has depth, perhaps, it must be said, because it's true, "emerges as a counterpart to the already decadent Greenbergian cutting criticism, and comes just as a contraefectuación not all the primates in that theory rested to remove, but in a strictly implement the guidelines. Therefore, appealing to the radical return to figuration that the time claimed was as minimal, running the line at the back, managed to explore artistically as negativity.

Ultimately, Minimalism, far from being reduced to the perfection of form, a reduction to almost zero of the primates and emotional subjectivism more sentimental art, it insert in the thick of the movement who saw the need, and urgent at the time, to problematize the ideological and political structures of production, display and obviously the look. In this regard, minimalism and pop art, far from wanting to see them even as their contraréplica perfect have to go hand in hand with the realization that if something had clear that we had to emphasize was the social cause of the work. Just by the mere act of introducing the work in the processes of mass production and mass consumption, as both movements was prepared to give a further twist in the objectifying process of unleashing the artwork and art negativity specific post-industrial era.

That said, and going and finally to the heart of the matter, the paintings of Jus Juchtmans redirects epistemological and perceptual primates to minimalism, in conjunction with the problematization and paint almost eternal, continuing research the terms of the look and the act of seeing.

His paintings, apparently monochrome, refer to the plausibility of a look that, in contemplation, discovers new effects, new colors that invite you to go beyond the canvas to go further. On a surface, as we say monochrome Juchtmans compulsively repeated up to thirty-times-the pictorial gesture back to cover the canvas painting. Layers of colors with different shades even come to result in an area where the gaze is lost in different textures and unexpected colors.

always, as stated above, a something beyond the eye, always look to see what is not-ve. The negativity of the art, once again, moving to the beat of vision obstructed or non-viewing permitted. The aesthetics course of his work must certainly give way to thoughts that have looked at the problem of discursive its axis. Otherwise we would be reducing the work to be simple thing, a mere look psicologicista, and we would be committing the same outrage committed against minimalism.

may no longer be plausible a transcendence to appeal to as Malevich could do, maybe not such strategies are so new and overwhelming as it may be for LeWitt and Stella , but certainly the problematization the look is still the center of discourse on which to draw desartización processes that articulate the history of eart d concpeto in its entirety. Only then can Adorno, and it concluded, ruling that "the poles of the desartización is that the artwork becomes a thing and a vehicle of the psychology of the beholder."