interveiwwith theartist

- what ws your entrypoint into art?

– just a negation, or after then negation. you negate everything you

have, everything you are, but still after that, you are something and

you have something, but these things are freed from their context to

somedegree, you see them unrelated, uncoordinated, maybe in an

esthetical manner, but that might be just another context which they’re

detached from. so after the annihilation, what are things, what are

experiences? that was my question. are they empty? meaningless? how is

meaning formed from sense and cognition? then i found that ‘noemata’

would be a good term for such free phenomenological investigation and

play, relating it to art through a sort of ‘epoché’ – a suspension of

judgement and interpretation – letting the ‘noemata’ speak for

themselves, as objects of thought, as an autopoiesis – how these objects

or thoughts produce themselves and their meaning rather automatically

from being part of our cognitive framework. so in short, i consider

these things nothing, just a product of ourselves which is rather hard

to avoid to produce anyway. but i experiment and take an interest in

observing what they are from that analysis. in a way it’s like playing

with a toy, though you’re inherently attached to the toy, so you’re the

toy being played with at the same time.

coming from negation, or coming out from negation, one would

question their status of being – are thesethings psychological lacks,

abjects, are they worthless, formless waste? you have to respond to

these questions also. you have to approach the things from the unknown,

or at least the suspended known and now, which bear with it a certain

insecurity and anxiety, even a disgust for the thing and the object, a

depression of things. not to get drowned in that you have to keep a firm

stand in the negation from which they originally came out, which keeps

you free from their entangled dreariness. a condition for dealing with

this is that i always detach from the things as soon as possible, rather

want nothing to do with them. which somehow is a consequence of them

keeping producing themselves from nothing. another way of saying this

would be that after the negation, you ask, what is supposed to happen,

what are you supposed to do, to be? art is a possible answer to that for

us in the western world, i mean in the sense that we are without any

strong religious or ideological foundation, from our insistence on

freedom or materiality. one might see art as a ‘material freedom’ then,

or analogous to ‘objects of thought’, where ‘thought’ is meant more like

a self-reference of choice and consciousness, and ‘object’, how these

‘thoughts’ form forms that are recognizable to us. one might approach

this from different levels of cognition – from the unconscious, a

priori, sense data, data stream, up to very general abstractions, to

create ‘objects’ or then, works of art.

– these works of art, how can they stand on their own, if they’re

inherently attached to our cognition? and how can the artist stand on

his own, if these creations are seen as nothing and thrown away as soon

as they appear?

– the artist has to firmly believe in himself, beyond the nothingness

of products, or else he’d be subject to despair – anxiety of freedom,

depression of emptiness, and similar. he must create himself it seems,

and he might do that through creating things, inherently attached to his

cognition, though the creations, even of himself, are all disposable if

they are in fact disposable – i mean, if you’re able to throw it away

you should throw it away, otherwise you’d be throwing yourself away,

turning yourself into waste.

http://noemata.net/1317

http://ift.tt/1HY1ijL