The worst thing about Dogma is it doesn’t like to start arguments. Its intention is to close itself into general nomenclatures without any commitment or meaning, and to turn it into a practice. That’s why it can only move on the edge of ignorance –ignorance as an excuse or as a starting point, ignorance as a sine qua non characteristic of the addressee or, even better, as a univocal and ideological decision– or, often enough, on the edge of scandal. Scandalized by the tradition as well as by the non-figurative, shocked by the abstract and the concrete, considering everything as halfway between the beautiful and the grotesque. The dogma does not fill gaps: it prefers to point them out, prefers to denounce them, and prefers to stand across the street and to lack any aesthetic, ethic or semantic definition that forces it to give subsequent explanations. However, cannot accept be defined as spectator: there is an inflection that turns its diatribe on something worth listening to with a respectful silence, and its reasoning often involves ideas like “Love”, “Innocence,” “Life” and “Sublime “, which become handy either if it’s being progressive or reactionary. Dogma is rector and categorical, taxonomic and antipyretic. Do not try to get involved except to demand other’s belief in the moral superiority of its statement. The dogma is conveniently immaterial during the embodiment of its activism: the censor, whose comfort is sought in subsequent and also intangible validations (quotations, fake militancys wildly narrated, university degrees and applauses from the audience). It is the same for the censor hating nudism as for the nudist censor, the same for the censor facing you as for the censor inside of you.
The censor, secretly, would also like to be naked. And stop being it right away.
Two moments at the map of “Meat Joy” (both contain nudity):
We are misteriously taken away from reality. They suspect a betrayal, a deceit; the simple minded accuses immorality, evasion, a confederacy; those accustomed to the sistematic boredom will accuse a bourgeois mannerism or Bolshevik slavery. Therefore, the idiotic voices of dogma would demand the art to be usefull, measurable, popular. They want it to be boring, sad and easily digestible, as they imagine the world to be.
Art has to have what it takes to achieve a transmigration of meaning: fire, delight, contradiction, a febril charm, damage. If you want usefull art, go to a crats shop. You’ll find plates with drawings; incredibly useful.
His imagery, however, makes an important reflection on some of the deeper characterizations of art: the viewer’s role of silent observer, voyeur, inappropriate witness, invasive bystander or masturbatory offender, which encloses a good part of the graphic and performative arts since a long while. Hamilton also recreates for his art three idyllic situations and raises them conclusively: the ethereal condition of the body, innocence as erotic matter and “lesbos-lesbia” as both meaning and space for utopia.
Photo by David Hamilton.
A BEAUTIFUL THE END | UN HERMOSO FINAL
“Dave stared around the office. He went to the window and stared upwards at the crazy patchwork of the sky. For all he knew, in such a sky there might be cracks. In fact, as he looked, he could make out a rift, and beyond that a … hole … a small patch where there was no color, and yet the sky there was not black. There were no stars there, though points of light were clustered around the edges, apparently retreating”. The sky is falling by Lester Del Rey
SOUND IMAGES | IMAGENES SONORAS
By Daniel Ivan | Por Daniel Ivan.
“Maybe there’s no better way to demonstrate the usefulness of the theory of sounds, making a comparison between the faculties of hearing and seeing.” Narcissus Marsh.
Yesterday I came across this article published in 1683 the scientific journal Philosophical Traslation of the Royal Society of London. The article is entitled: “On the Doctrine of Sounds” and was written to Narcissus Marsh, an endearing character: english cleric, archbishop in Dublin who helped found the Dublin Philosophical Society, founded the first public library in Ireland, student of Oriental languages, vicar and Lord of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales.
I found it interesting the vision of this man who lived in the seventeenth century world and imagined the changes that would transform the ways of perceiving the sound, compared with the changes brought to optics.
It is interesting that 300 years after the publication of this article, objects such as a microscope or telescope are, even today, relatively rare objects in our lives, and that items such as headphones or amplifiers are part of our everyday life and are almost indispensable . It is unimaginable for me to leave my hearing aids and I find it ridiculous to go home for my telescope, maybe come back for my glasses but because without them I can just hear the sounds, they are not essential for me.
Download the original article “On the Doctrine of Sounds” 1683