THE TAO OF WAR AND PEACE IN MY LATEST SOUND COLLAGE

My latest piece "War and Peace is a State of Mind" is about the eternal recurrence of conflict and harmony, and how the murky recesses of the individual and collective consciousness reflect the state of the world. It was a complicated one and the research as well as the creative process of putting all the bits together inspired some deep-felt emotions and frequent bouts of tears. It was interesting to listen to historical documents about the Second World War in a very focused way - when you see these things on TV they just pass by so quickly, and don't usually cause a deeper emotional connection with the way things really were back then. The rhetoric used varies a great deal, it's sometimes aggressive warmongering, sometimes triumphant propaganda, sometimes woeful but determined statements - and then there's the neutral voice too, in order to complete the spectrum. The explosion of the atom bomb has a profound effect on me. I decided to stick to parts of WW II and the Cold War because of the wealth of documents that are now part of our collective consciousness, and also because introducing more modern wars would simply have been overwhelming with confusing results. I hope some of what I felt will come through to the listeners.

In case you wonder, the theme in the beginning is not from an ice cream van, but a theme (the Swedish Rapsodhy) that is said to have been used as the interval signal for a German language numbers station during the Cold War. The idea of weird codes being transmitted through the air is somehow alluring and creepy, but also quite a strong metaphor for the murky world of the collective consciousness (or even unconsciousness).

In my last post, I explained what liminal means and suggested that war is usually seen as a liminal experience, i.e. "out of the ordinary". I was interested in exploring this assumption further, not least as it was an excuse to equate the external event with ongoings in the human psyche. I realise that a lot of people will have no idea what I'm talking about when I bring in some Taoist philosophy, but I will attempt to explain myself nonetheless. My sleep, or lack thereof, is a disaster and I'm finding that a possible cause could be an neuroinflammation in the brain, that is an over activation of microglia... I'm very worried about my upcoming sleep study and whether there is any help to be had. I have been able to escape my worries by drowning myself in work when I can focus, as this sound project has been quite exciting to me. However, thinking is very hard for me these days and my inability to sleep naturally and my increasingly adverse reaction to medication doesn't help. I still hope I can make some kind of sense.

According to a Taoist way of looking at reality, polarities are fundamentally interconnected and not in conflict with each other - the conflict lies within the human mind. Life has a cyclical quality, as polarities (yin and yang) shift from one to another. One can't exist without the other. War can only exist as a counterpart to peace, and vice versa. 

We think of war as liminal, i.e. “out of the ordinary”, but this is not quite true if we look at war and conflict in its broadest sense (and I think it's really only liminal in some ways were there is real change involved). Conflict is as frequent as the lack of it. This might be easier to see if in your mind, you exchange "conflict" and "war" with other forms of disorder and chaos. Life is a wave movement that alternates various forms of chaos with forms of order and stability (there is a tipping point where everything is in good balance, but it doesn't last as nature has to take its course). The way of nature is inescapable, it's our attitude towards the facts of life that we should worry about more.

To humans, war is normally terrifying but in the long run, a lack of action can also get tedious. People also get complacent when everything is a bit "too easy". This is as much an external reality, as an internal one. I think it's really important to remember that one mirrors the other. A dissatisfied and agitated mind will cause havoc in real life, but warmongering can also arouse other people's secret aggressions and make people lose their inner control. To change the world you do have to address the human psyche first. The point, however is, that you can't do that by fighting and repressing your urges. That's violence against the self, which in ironically just perpetuates the idea of violence. The more you resist something the more it will keep coming back. That's why resisting war isn't the answer either. In fact, our "fight and flight" mechanism isn't serving us very well anymore - more and more people are succumbing to stress related diseases. We are luckily evolving, and are thus able to find new and creative ways of dealing with perceived threat. We need to rethink our propensity for stressful situations in which we are hunting or being hunted. How can we lead our lives in a more emotionally mature and less simplistic way? That is surely our future!

However, the point I really want to make is that by resisting conflict while advocating peace in a warrior like way we are shooting ourselves in the leg. History already shows that holding onto peace (or status quo as it often means in practice) too forcefully will lead to all manners of suppression and ultimately civil unrest. Even "fighting for peace" is a warrior's stand, and perhaps humanity needs to reinvent its warriors (in fact some of them are now "diplomats"). 

To realise the nature of this semantic tension in our minds is surely a way of dealing with the urge to exert aggression towards one another. If you postulate that polarities are irrevocably interlinked like two sides of a coin, then by reinventing the idea we have about conflict and how to solve it through war, we automatically reinvent our idea of peace, and vice versa. That to me is evolution, but it's up to us how quickly we are willing to allow for change.

The way the world runs the wars at present is patriarchal (note the lack of women in the piece, as I simply couldn't find any other than ones in numbers stations), but thanks to evolution, expressions of disagreement and power eventually change over time. In the end, the concept "war and peace" is no doubt less about what it represents to us in our minds than how we may reinvent these concepts and seek less destructive ways of dealing with challenges within ourselves and in relation to the rest of the world.

I have written some more about eternal recurrence in this blog post.

IS CONCEPTUAL ART JUST BAD PHILOSOPHY?

Eija-Liisa Ahtila: "ME/WE, OKAY, GRAY" (still from video, 1993)

When I was a student of philosophy, which ended up as one of my minor subjects, I was looking for answers about life's deeper questions but didn't find very many. My feeling at the time was that most philosophers sit in their armchair conjuring up contrived problems that have very little to do with what is really going on in the human psyche. The only modern philosopher that I could instantly relate to (and this was when I was 19 years old, without any previous formal education in these matters) was Nietsche. His philosophy is one that encompasses questions about spirituality and the human place in the grand scheme of things. It has an element of psychology to it. Years later, after my failed years in art college in France, I ended up studying the one subject that did provide me with the answers I was looking for, i.e. the psychology of comparative religion. I enjoyed every minute of it - until I finished my Master's degree which dealt with creativity and found that my health problems were making it increasingly difficult for me to read anything at all. 

I have to say, however, that I did nonetheless respect the serious philosopher who is that one deviant human being who is able to question the way we look at reality. Regardless whether these strange turns of logic and the challenge to our conditioned perception is of any deeper significance to the human race or not, it's still admirable. Some of these theories, for instance those dealing with our construction of language, are actually even relevant to human development.

I have often thought, however, that conceptual artists are very much like this - philosophers. They often throw ideas into the air for the audience to catch and look at, and it's very much about challenging our programmed brains. The problem is that the issues they like to dwell on very often end up being excuses for bad art, and in fact it's not very good philosophy either. These people would normally be incapable of writing a convincing, intellectual thesis on the subject of their challenging questions. And if they did, they wouldn't be artists but philosophers... I really feel that this is a great problem and I can't think of a single example of a truly successful artist who can do both with panache. Modern and contemporary art deals to a great extent with social commentary, and that's all fine and dandy. Trouble is, very little else goes down very well with the authorities of art, unless it's technically intriguing. What looks interesting and glitzy on the surface, with a promise of greater depths beneath, is very often just gimmicky art in the end. 

I get updates from the Saatchi Facebook page and it's amazing how often they promote art that is just "clever", i.e. it's a construct (often a face) of little bits of something, and it is technically very well advanced. This is usually not conceptual art, it's just art that looks good on the web. But what does it say? Not much, as far as I can see. On the other hand - and this is a bit of a paradox - there's the idea that individual artists are only eligible for grants and other funding if they provide a challenging view of reality and society in particular, and this is generally speaking the realm of performance art, installations and videos. These pieces don't render themselves well in photos nor are they easy to understand and relate to, so they have to be accompanied with a thousand words. It's the well articulated, but not necessarily very comprehensive, philosophical statements that convince the jury, as far as I can see. How often than not do we end up with art that is not of the heart but of the mind? How often is this just bad philosophy and not art at all?

I'll give you an example. I was checking out a short article on a Finnish female artist who is considered one of the most innovative and is therefore internationally acclaimed. She is Eija-Liisa Ahtila, born in 1959. She also likes to have characters perform in ways that people wouldn't normally behave. In "Okay", a woman paces up and down the floor speaking loudly about violent relationships, and during the course of this performance her voice and thus her personality changes. What does it mean? Her work is supposed to be reminiscent of Finnish cult director Aki Kaurismäki's films - we just watched "The Man With No Name" and found the explicit contrivances about people who can only express themselves through their sentimental music very unconvincing. No - not all Scandinavians have Asperger's syndrome or mild autism like the heroines in many criminal stories of today. In another piece, some women go down in a lift to a place beneath the surface of water, they float around discussing atomic catastrophes; apparently this is meant to be some kind of parallel to their personal crises. I'm not sure I don't find this analogy a bit far fetched, and worse still - I don't really care. I'm not sure this is good psychology either, and so it leaves me indifferent. On this note, I have to admit I haven't seen any of this in real life and may have a better opinion if I did (but I doubt it). You may recognize the imagery of floating women and people in awkward, dreamlike situations from my review of Pia Borg's work.

On her website, Ahtila explains "ME/WE OKAY from 1993": "A short film with three fictional episodes and narration consisting of rhythmic monologues. The subject of these three humane dramas is the transformation of one´s identity. ME/WE is about balancing individual identity and about control. OKAY uses a single on-screen persona and various voices to consider the shifts, desires, and inhibitions of the ego within a sexual relationship. The subject of GRAY is the change in reality caused by a catastrophe, and the blurring of the boundary between ego and other."

You may like to check out JAR, an online magazine that attempts at a synergy between art and serious research. I signed up for it but couldn't figure out how to upload my stuff. I hope they have made it easier.

Modern/contemporary art is supposedly all about the fragmentation of the human being. It seems to me, that only those who admit to being existentially lost are considered serious artists. As far as I can see, it leaves us with a body of work that is mostly nonsensical and chaotic. I don't find it helpful to human evolution. I don't believe life has to be that way at all, and my own art does not express a fragmented world view. I'm not saying I am not interested in conceptual art... I will continue to be curious, and probably more so the older I get. I will continue to try and read what people mean even though I struggle to do so. However... We were watching a documentary about the Turner Prize and whether the art that has been awarded or nominated really is any good. I would say that sadly, most of it is just gimmicky. I mean come on, someone gets an award for turning the lights on and off in an exhibition space! This artist has nothing better to do than make art about his inability to make art - and that's quite a symptom of the "modern". And yet another is awarded for flattening silver plated objects and giving them a "new lease of life"... It's just sad.

What do you think? I would love some comments.

As I had just finished this article I came across this one, and here the author, Ben Lewis, states as he ponders the decadence of contemporary art (decadence has crossed my mind too) and especially that of Damien Hirst: "There is a pattern typical of these end-phase periods, when an artistic movement ossifies. At such times there is exaggeration and multiplication instead of development. A once new armoury of artistic concepts, processes, techniques and themes becomes an archive of formulae, quotations or paraphrasings, ultimately assuming the mode of self-parody./.../ I believe that this decline shares four aesthetic and ideological characteristics with the end-phases of previous grand styles: formulae for the creation of art; a narcissistic, self-reinforcing cult that elevates art and the artist over actual subjects and ideas; the return of sentiment; and the alibi of cynicism." Read more about "why modern art is so bad" here on www.prospectmagazine.co.uk! It's potent stuff. I don't agree that the use and repetition of certain style elements is all bad as they are signs of the times, but I do agree that style can easily become mannerism and a lack of originality.

Damien Hirst at Tate Modern, "For the love of God": This skull is covered with real diamonds. Perhaps this is meant to be
a cynical comment about modern day art collectors...  

"But what a small and conservative act of rebellion this glossiness is. Art has become small, superficial and self-indulgent in its emotional range: sentimental rather than truly intellectual or moving." I couldn't agree more, though my knowledge is quite limited due to years of ignoring the whole realm of conceptual art. I love the end: "To paraphrase Trotsky, let us turn to these artists, their billionaire patrons and toadying curators and say: 'You are pitiful, isolated individuals. You are bankrupts. Your role is played out. Go where you belong from now on—into the dustbin of art history!'”