Introduction
You probably noticed that I haven't given out much information about myself. There is no full name, address or DOB.
This is unusual in many ways, first, it doesn't help to build the general quick picture about me. It also would appear as if there is something I would like to hide or maybe the trust feel is mutual, it also would be a waste of time dwelling any further giving out the information that would immediately dismiss or classify the art presented. Or is it the information presented. Classification, privacy and information, these are all also of interests to business, institutions, the intelligence community and also all sorts of religious type crusaders that are out there.
It is groups and group work that build and make the society stronger, but don’t worry - I am not having the attention to take this text into Marxist like overview. The argument is that with nuisances that result from lost privacy is something we have to learn to live with. It is and should be part of our everyday life. To be successful or earn your name means partially having to live with that.
If your name was however disgraced, tainted with crime or hurt by being open and innocent to the world you grow in. You would have a good reason to hide and make your self scarce, both in opinion and statue for the people in front of you.
But there is also a problem; when a fool enters the hall full of masked individuals; there is a lot of questions coming its way and or out of its mind. It can become a victim, target of entertainment, a mouse in the lions den? The lion ages or has multiplied its food rations might be diminishing but as well is down to earth bored, or sees the mouse that just entered the cell as its own kitten, ready for adoption.
Public appearance, speech and notice boards. The internet is all this, as well as the aforementioned. It has masked individuals and it can be and turn both tiger and lion to the fool.
Lucky for most, this is where it also ends; since really - we deal and have a computer network to content with.
Anartism and the Internet
Currently on google the search returns only a link to a book (Helene Parmelin). Few years back, it would return much more and most pages were wrong in explaining or putting forward what it is about. Going even further let's say five years the explanation and definition was full and proper.
So what happened?
Have people supporting it changed, has the world changed or is all in doubt, 'cause in real manor, anartism is against and at least about one think, being or becoming a movement.
The Art world is about inspiration, weird different things are a feast. Benefits from art are to exploit and be exploited. Anartism is put against that in many contexts, missing out that critique and explanation that arise from anartism, goes actually to benefit the artist itself.
Individualism is important to everything, unfortunately to Anartism the/or that individualism has a spore from something is biased. Being biased to the true cause, to any explanation about the art in front, undermines the art in anartism. This is something hard to understand but mildly means that what is on offer has to have a proper explanation if it clouds perception. Turning the back to the biased doesn’t work and is actually dismissed by the true anartism.
For example: Flogging a dead horse
would be a critique against anartism, and the anartist would reply:
Yes! But that is the image you see and observe, you bring thought and words to it, it is done and it is here or is happening. Look you spend time with it even with this small critique, but you don’t add to it or you are not doing anything the same. And yes, millions have and further millions will, but you haven’t or had, at least in this form and vision - you simply have never flogged a dead horse, and literally speaking I doubt you probably ever will.
The point is that anartism has to argue and provide feedback to criticism. Art itself can and does turn a blind eye to many thinks. Art is about exploration into ideas not necessary having to supply provisions. The schooling itself that comes from it, adapts to the individual, the provision is a kept direction. Be it to perceive or deliver for aesthetic reasons, political even manifestation or an all or part sense inspiring aurora and nothing more for the audience.
However, anartism doesn’t have to have an audience, it should teach and inspire and it could lead even to turn a proper and possible way of making a living. The problem is where an artist sells, an anartist would not be possible to live by in all hers/his creativity. Since the art produced has no price for anartist, it’s put simple; priceless.
Postmodernism as a term is really only a historical placement in retrospect to Art. The against everything going however is not anartism; rather a parallel to events and distinguished stubbornness that affects further growth and understanding.
Where the loving is lost in art, might have the actual roots in anartism from going against the principles each individual tries to express or have lived by.
Are those principles to philosophical to be interesting concerns anartism, it wrestles with it to make it important.
The period or phase doesn’t exist the same way, art doesn’t argue the benefit and takes it on the chin. Taking on the chin doesn’t make sense to a commoner; so slowly you probably can understand where all is heading too. Realism?
Being a realist is also not common, healed wounds are shy to newer slashes. Like loss is inevitable to strike us anytime in our lifetime, in all sorts of perceived or not evil events, prevention and truth is the food for a realist. It is a black and white world, holding and taking in art, that can only be dear to heart. Something hard to argue against but also just simple plain, to have to live with. In other words, realism is pretty much blank and boring.
A normal artist would not tell or profess into this too much, and for good reason. It is a take going against the present and produced in front of you. Giving it reason and any further thoughts is dangerous, it could take away and make the piece unstable or worse distract the working horse or the fine balancing line of the desired expression and proper communication, proper deemed to the individual or more and less his community and way of life.
Estranged to the particular however is not trying or going into anything further. Other art forms might aid, but this also places the artist into other sought proficiencies. Nothing wrong with that most will argue, except that doing the one thing we found our self doing best has also been derailed.
The gut wrenching socio impact things have to a normal artist life is in the end also different to the consumer or observer from his/hers creativity. From where can the valuable judgment of proper and the absolvent is acceptable is a question again left to be answered from an audience point of view.
Who and what is the audience, where does it come from. Has it been brought in or is it talent and craft that made the name and the work appropriate exemplar to shine in some particular gallery.
Anartism questions and rejects this as an important influence. Better said it ignores, ways-in and places creativity to provide inner meaning. Sense to another persons sense, the medium, description, both beauty or doom above the object, theme and message, and unaided spirit. It should appeal to the common; it should communicate and be admired, be it even bad or wrong when possible it can be understood in more ways than one. It strives that the work becomes the author without over head hovering authority.
Thourn Whaul '06