Interactiuni

make yourself a radioactive instant soup and look inside out

inside – a barrel of monkeys

outside – three beggars

hang yourself on a wall

small world

let go of a thought

it freezes

november

Am descoperit si eu, cu niscaiva intarziere,  filme romanesti vechi, colea – un exemplu ar fi Independenta Romaniei (Grigore Brezeanu, 1912). Altul, mai pe scurt, e desenul animat cu Haplea (Marin Iorda, 1927), Frosa si catelul Zdup. Drept e ca eu n-am crescut cu Haplea – tot ce a ajuns la mine a fost zicala “De ce esti Haplea?” Voi cum stati la capitolul Haplea, episod din copilarie?

I confess that at that time examining the movement of hands and arms was one of my daily default activities, running somewhere in the background of every conversation or metro ride. I wasn’t impressed with prominent veins, I wasn’t interested in the color of the polished nails, I wasn’t trying to find hypotheses for green finger tips. Why and how they looked didn’t touch me much. With those impressions in mind, I would then return home, look at the turn-of-the-century building from across the street, and imagine stories about each window that still had the light switched on late at night. My stories were a collection of hands and windows.

Budapest, last night.

She was walking down the boulevard, heading to Hősök tere. As she passed by, I couldn’t help but notice that her left arm was swinging in the air in the most bizarre fashion. Her right elbow was resting on the large green leather bag she kept somewhat up, placed on her hip. The left arm, though, was mysteriously attractive, gently moving back an forth, as if almost estranged from the rest of the body. Its appearance was that of an abstract shiny sculpture and its movement that of a flying fish in a gliding flight over the water. It truly seemed like the body did not form a whole. Its strange and enticing combination of qualities made me follow the flying fish arm at some distance. I can hardly remember any other detail of the woman with a green bag, but for some reason, it made me think of two fashion advertisements from a Romanian gazette, from the early 1900s. A modern woman holding a cigarette in her hand, sitting crossed legged in an arm chair, wearing trousers, and pointing to her magnified Viennese gum heels that “every woman had to wear,” as the ad imperatively recommended. In contrast, another woman, with a forme droite, rationnelle, representing the reshaping of the woman’s body into the new “S-bend” corseted silhouette. As compared to them, it was as if the undefined arm was performing a coming out of some sort. A seemingly free gesture, I thought and was delighted by its sheer movement. But as I lapsed back in time for this one second, my unusual synecdoche too slipped into a crowd of tourists on Andrássy út, and I was left alone with my musings.

And so I carried on. Late that night, when I reached the end of the Andrássy boulevard, it was already 1896. The yellow metro was silent, and the preparations for the Millennium celebrations were over.

Brassó 1893, black ink.

She blinked a couple of times in a row, as if trying to hurry her thoughts and get to the conclusion. It was past midnight. In the yellow light, she caressed her ear and a few grey locks, and then her hand grabbed the glass of water, holding it half-way to her mouth, while writing the last lines of the report. Her handwriting was calligraphic. She then put in order the eight pages written in black ink, and patiently went through the numbers again in pencil. After all, the budget for the girls’ boarding school and for the orphanage was the crucial point of the report. Added up, the yearly expenses amounted to roughly 4,500 fl. – a manageable sum, with some efforts and donations.

She spaced out for a second, re-evaluating her work. “The Romanian women’s association in Braşov,” she thought, “has an important mission. The truth is that the boarding school and the orphanage that we are running are tremendously useful for our people. We are bringing up little girls, who are either orphans or come from our middle class, and we give them a practical education, which they otherwise wouldn’t get. We have to increase the number of girls that we educate, to have a bigger impact. Organizing the ball will help us raise some funding for that…” Meanwhile, her long bony fingers lit a cigarette, and the ash fell on her long black dress without her noticing. On the carpet, the shadow of her hand moved and looked like a pair of pliers, always ready and useful. Shortly, she cracked the window open, and drew the curtains.

On the first floor of the same building, a small silhouette appeared at the window. The little girl pressed her forehead against the cold glass, and felt her temples throbbing. She was one of the girls from the boarding school. The place had been established a few years earlier, in 1886, but it was still financially fairly insecure, especially given the fact that the women’s association had been trying to link it to a more recent project, that of an orphanage. Managing both of them was challenging and it implied to some extent a fair amount of networking and lobbying. But the little girl didn’t know any of these things. Her days at the boarding school weren’t particularly exciting, and she had to obey a strict program for three years. During that time she learned how to take care of a household, of the kitchen, how to wash, iron, sew, and make clothes. She learned knitting and the art of embroidery. She was also exposed to some pedagogical principles insofar as they were applicable to bringing up children. To this curriculum, the women’s association committee further added the practice of hygiene, a few aspects of gardening, religion classes, Romanian language and literature, arithmetic, and household bookkeeping. It was the woman in black dress with bony fingers that moved like a pair of pliers who wrote this curriculum.

The thirteen year old took a breath of cold night air, closed the window with a shiver and rested her palm against the window again. She had always liked feeling the contour of her hand, the first few seconds of touching the cold glass, the burning warmth of her hand. She innocently looked at her dim reflection – she was calm now.

The building was completely silent and dark. I sank my hands into my pockets and went down the street, pleased with this peaceful night and its detours.

Bear with us until we find out who our character is with the help of Facebook Quizzes* (read as if flirting):

Rose, your name should be Rose, you are a gentle person.

How old do you look? You look as if you’re sixteen, truly a breath of fresh air.

Rose, you’re my Pixar character, my savvy little rodent. You love the finest things in life and you’re so generous – your best trait of character.

My corny pick-up line? If I received a nickel for each time I saw someone as beautiful as you, I’d have five cents!

Sneaky Rose asked what type of Starbucks drink I thought she was.

Sweets, you’re my Grande Mocha Frappuccino!

And so we went out for coffee and we chatted long enough for us to give Rose a flat start.

She wakes up every day at 11:43 sharp, no alarm needed. The first thing she does is brush her teeth, but she sometimes mistakes the cups and brushes her teeth with coffee. She’s one of us. Rose is passionate about tennis in a very unusual way. She’s never been to a tennis championship and she hardly ever watches tennis on TV. And yet, she loves tennis in her own mathematical way, checking the online statistics for ace leaders, serve speed and serve percentage leaders. Every afternoon when she waters the flowers, gentle Rose smiles meekly at her mother. After all, which U.S. state do you think she should belong to? South Dakota, Facebook says, as she has an extremely close-knit group of friends and family that she’s crazy about. Mind you, should you cast Rose in a horror movie, she’d have to die in the middle of the film as she’s too good a friend and not much of a survivor. All positive things aside, we should add that Rose is more like a porcus marinus – a terrifying creature, with an uncertain identity in medieval texts. In case you didn’t figure her out, she’s a misfit of the harmless and useless sort. The unfortunate irregular type. A clumsy drunk too. Fearless as she may be, Rose’s life has been a tad bit boring and we’d suggest that the next author turns the course of her Facebook fate and doesn’t let her live for 102 years and instead sacrifices her. Take her away from Facebook and turn Rose into a grown-up – a round character. And the story begins…

The morning was violent blue. I opened my eyes before five o’clock and asked myself, “Does she really know what she’s doing?” The pain in my chest felt like lowering my heart into a well as you lower a bucket, your hands clenched to a rusty chain.

* To help the reader: all italics are names of Facebook quizzes, except for the last paragraph. Should you take Rose by the hand and sacrifice her in your text as it is our wish, send us a Facebook greeting or write on our walls. We care about gentle Rose.

Cum să motivezi audienţa feminină să meargă la vot astăzi

Tehnic vorbind, videoclipul are defecte serioase de concepţie. Printre altele, naraţiunea prin care videoclipul intenţionează să creeze o punte de sens între comportamentul pe care vrea să îl încurajeze/creeze şi activitatea presupus plăcută audienţei e una foarte ambiguă. Mesajul textual, SOIS BELLE ET VOTE, întăreşte această ambiguitate. Ce trebuie să înţeleagă audienţa feminină? Că imperativul votării e unul la fel de presant precum cel al cosmetizării cotidiene menite a asigura o apariţie onorabilă în inima iarmarocului local? Cît de credibilă e asocierea aceasta?

Imi propun, in cele ce urmeaza, sa elaborez citeva raspunsuri in contextul unei dezbateri recente cu privire la arta si moralitate pe acest blog (A se vedea postul lui Andruska, “Shakespeare si cenzura corectitudinii politice”). Le multumesc, pe aceasta cale, lui Andrei, Arankas, si István, care au contribuit la aceasta dezbatere, facind comentarii la observatiile mele. Intr-un post ulterior, voi incerca sa expun sistematic dezbaterea legata de moralitate in arta, alaturi de pozitia pe care o sustin eu.

1. Arankas, tu spui ca:

Principalul motiv pentru care [nu omologhez idea de autonomie a esteticului] este faptul ca arta in general (mai putin arta abstracta…), pe langa mult-prea-mult celebrata functie estetica mai indeplineste (din fericire) multe alte functii: sociale, politice, ecologice, de stimulare a constiintei etc.

Din pacate, nu ai un argument aici (si asta independent de ce cred eu cu privire la arta). Autonomia esteticului, asa cum o definesti tu, chiar inseamna ca arta NU indeplineste si alte functii. Or ceea ce propui ca argument mai sus nu e in fapt decit un re-statement al tezei de argumentat. Cu alte cuvinte, tu spui: motivul pentru care arta nu indeplineste numai o functie estetica este acela ca ea indeplineste si alte functii. Or asta e exact ceea ce trebuie sa argumentezi.

2. Imi acorzi ca

arta nu este morala sau imorala si noi nu apreciem (valorizam) arta in functie de acordul / dezacordul personal cu mesajul moral transmis. Trebuie sa recunosc ca arta nu este nici morala nici imorala in natura ei dar nu pot sa nu remarc faptul ca, de multe ori, arta functioneaza ca un ‘moral conduct’.

Pai asta este EXACT ceea ce vreau eu sa sustin: evident ca arta, ca orice fenomen, poate fi folosita in fel si chip, adica poate juca numeroase functii. Mentionam adineauri ca, daca as fi atacat in muzeu, as folosi Pasarea Maiastra pe post de arma. E obvios ca, in acel context, functia obiectului estetic devine una defensiva. La fel, “Negutatorul din Venetia” a fost folosita in aparatul de propaganda nazist. In aceeasi ordine de idei, arta poate juca rolul de calmant psihic (cunosc un asemenea caz: “Culorile astea ma linistesc”). Nenumarate sunt utilizarile pe care omul le poate da artei. Chestiunea este urmatoarea: exista ceva propriu artei, in absenta careia ea sa inceteze a mai fi arta? Un text artistic poate fi folosit in scopuri propagandistice in oarecum acelasi fel in care este folosit un discurs politic. Dar atunci vine intrebarea: de ce vorbim despre primul in termeni de arta? Ce anume il distinge pe acesta de discursul politic? O ranga nu devine subit opera de arta in momentul cind am incetat sa o mai folosesc intru apararea mea. “Pasarea Maiastra” nu inceteaza, insa, a fi ceea ce a si fost in tot acest timp, anume un obiect estetic, chiar daca am folosit-o in scop de auto-aparare la un moment dat.

3. Sunt de acord cu tine cind afirmi ca:

arta ne indeamna / imbie / determina sa gandim mai mult si mai serios la ce se intampla in jurul nostru ‘in forms we are not already aware of.’

Dar asta nu se intimpla decit pentru ca opera de arta isi joaca bine rolul care ii este propriu (i.e., care o individualizeaza), anume cel de obiect estetic. Arta e unica pentru ca prilejuieste o experienta unica a trairii. Daca tot ce ne spune o opera s-ar putea rezuma (si, astfel, epuiza) intr-o secventa verbala simpla, atunci arta ar fi superflua. Dar tocmai aici e rostul artei: ideea pe care creatorul vrea sa ti-o faca prezenta nu poate emerge decit in urma elaborarii meticuloase a materialului concret (cuvint, imagine, piatra, culori, etc.). Ideea (sau mesajul, sau continutul) nu e ceva care exista separat de materialul pe care-l “framinta” creatorul si care ar fi disponibil audientei in felul in care un mar intr-un pom sta pregatit pentru cules. Ideea capata consistenta in chiar procesul lucrului performat de creator asupra materialului si nu poate fi “inteleasa” de receptor decit in urma unei munci de re-constituire simetrice celei depuse de creator. De aceea spuneam ca o “opera e unitara in virtutea unei coeziuni a temei si a manierei in care aceasta este elaborata in actul scriiturii.” Din acelasi motiv cred ca nu ai dreptate cind spui ca as sustine separatia continutului de forma (citez: “oricum eu nu cred in distinctia forma – continut”).

4. Cind spui ca arta

nu ne ofera doar placere estetica dezinteresata (ori, cum ii placea lui Kant sa zica: “art is purposiveness without purpose”) ci lentile speciale prin care sa putem vedea (intelege, sau simti) how awful torture in fact is.

eu nu pot decit sa fiu de acord cu asta. Si deduc din ce spui ca imi atribuiai o convingere pe care nu o sustin de fapt, anume ca arta ne-ar oferi DOAR placere dezinteresata. Ce cred doar e ca arta e printre putinele realitati care sunt generate de si fac posibila o experienta dezinteresata (in sensul ca e libera de interes imediat), dar si ca un efect al ei este tocmai “deschiderea” mintii (de care vorbesti). Nabokov nu are un interes imediat (condamnarea pedofiliei, etc.) in a scrie Lolita si nici cititorul nu are (sau macar nu ar trebui sa aiba) un interes imediat in a citi Lolita. De altfel, e evident ca, atunci cind ne apucam de citit o carte, o facem IN PRIMUL RIND pentru ca anticipam o experienta estetica. Imi place mult pozitia exprimata de Vladimir Nabokov, de altfel singura explicita in aceasta privinta:

For me a work of art exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, that is a sense of being somehow, somewhere, connected with other states of being where art (curiosity, tenderness, kindness, ecstasy) is the norm (V. Nabokov, “On a Book Entitled Lolita,” p. 315).

E interesant sa observam ca valoarea estetica la Nabokov este gindita prin cel putin doua elemente care tin de domeniul eticii: tenderness si kindness. Ce vrea sa spuna Nabokov cu asta e urmatorul lucru: contemplarea frumosului ne aduce in preajma valorilor morale, ceea ce nu e foarte diferit de ce sustii tu, Arankas (ideea este discutata pe larg de Colin McGinn intr-un capitol din cartea sa Ethics, Evil, and Fiction).

5. Spui, de asemenea, ca

Nu vad care este problema daca “importam categorii exogene” in evaluarea artei. Nu asta facem tot timpul? Nu este acesta modul real, normal si uman in care receptam arta? Nu interpretam si valorizam mereu arta in functie de nevoile, dorintele, ideile, prejudecatile, aspiratiile, credintele pe care le avem? Nu doar ca interpretam si valorizam arta in functie de toti acesti itemi, dar pana si perceptia noastra in fata unui tablou este determinata de ceea ce prealabil avem in minte. Ochii nostrii “gandesc”!

Indiferent ce as crede cu privire la aceasta tema, argumentul de mai sus nu e solid. Faptul ca “asta facem tot timpul” nu inseamna ca asta si este ceea ce TREBUIE sa facem. Arta, asemeni moralei, are normativitatea ei. Daca se intimpla ca unii procedeaza intr-un anumit fel in arta si morala, asta nu inseamna ca ei si procedeaza corect, adica in acord cu standard inerente celor doua domenii. Evident ca persoana de care aminteam mai sus “interpreteaza” arta ca sursa de liniste psihica, i.e., ca terapeutica. Dar asta nu inseamna ca propriul artei este acela de a linisti anxietati in the first place. Exista in arta ceva mai mult, care se cere lecturat intr-un mod adecvat, spre exemplu in felul in care trebuie inteles mesajul cuiva care ne adreseaza o intrebare. Aici e pertinent exemplul dat de István cu privire la Nagel, care nu intelegea intrebarea profesoarei respective. Evident ca Nagel se straduia – in mod corect, as zice eu – sa priceapa ce voia sa spuna respective individa. E o chestie de minima adecvare la o situatie tipica de comunicare. Potrivit logicii argumentului tau, Nagel ar fi putut, spre exemplu, sa se multumeasca cu tonul vocii calde a respectivei si sa neglijeze in fapt ceea ce doamna intentiona sa ii transmita. La fel si in cazul operei: cineva a conceput-o ca sa dea glas unei idei care nu putea fi exprimata in alt fel (si asta cred ca e un adevar foarte important). Sarcina receptorului, in acest caz, e aceea de a face drumul lung al experientei operei respective, pentru a ajunge la “acel ceva” intentionat de autor. Atentie, asta nu inseamna ca receptorul nu aduce cu sine lumea sa aparte in actul receptarii, sau ca intentia autorului va fi recuperata in exact acelasi fel in care a manifestat-o autorul insusi. Insa, clipa de clipa, ceea ce trebuie sa aiba in vedere receptorul IN PRIMUL RIND este ce anume ii spune opera de arta.

6. Afirmi, mai mult, ca

Ceea ce se numeste “functia estetica” a artei este doar una dintre functiile artei (no more no less). Nu este o conditie necesara si nici suficienta pentru ca ceva sa fie numit ‘arta’.

Dar a spune asta e foarte riscant. Daca functia estetica nu este o conditie necesara pentru existenta artei, ce deosebeste atunci o ranga de “Pasarea Maiastra”?

7. Legat de Nabokov si Riefenstahl:

As spune ca folosesti notiunea de “continut imoral” cu doua sensuri diferite:

(a) in cazul romanului Lolita, cred ca, prin “continut imoral”, te referi la faptul ca Nabokov alege sa trateze o situatie imorala ca tema a scrierii sale (cred ca nu trebuie sa existe restrictii pentru un autor, in acest sens);

(b) in cazul “Triumfului Vointei”, cred ca, prin “continut imoral”, te referi la faptul ca Riefenstahl ar vrea, prin elaborarea unei teme istorice, sa faca un punct propagandistic (care se intimpla sa fie si imoral).

De fapt, trebuie sa recunosc ca nu am vazut decit partial acest film (aparut in 1934). Imi amintesc insa de o discutie purtata cu o foarte buna prietena evreica in legatura cu acest film. Ideea era ca poti lua foarte bine ca tema chiar ascensiunea nazismului, daca prin asta vrei sa dai sens acestui fenomen istoric (nu altceva face Hannah Arendt, dar in alt context decit cel artistic). Dar daca tu, ca artist, SPUI explicit audientei ce ar trebui sa creada (anume ca hitler ar fi un zeu, ca e bine sa te alaturi partidului unic, etc.), atunci incep sa am dubii ca ceea ce ai produs, desi are straiele obisnuite ale unei opera de arta cinematice, chiar si este o opera de arta.

Prezenta unor tehnici inovatoare nu e marca suficienta, si nici macar necesara, a unei opera de arta. Prezenta unor tehnici noi, sa zicem, in filmul “300” (cel despre momentul Termopile) nu face din acest film automat o opera de arta stricto sensu. Il poate face mai atractiv pentru o anumita audienta, fascinata de efecte speciale. In treacat fie spus, am motivele mele sa cred ca acest film chiar este un “text” propagandistic. Dar cred ca poti face un punct propagandistic si fara sa (pretinzi ca) faci arta. Pot sa iti spun: “Crede in oprimarea muncitorilor!” si sa imi fac inteles punctul chiar si fara sa produc o opera de arta in acest sens. Daca cineva precum Upton Sinclair exploreaza fenomenul oprimarii in societate (a se vedea, de exemplu, romanul The Jungle), intentia lui e sa iti faca prezente in minte conditiile de viata mizerabile in care traiesc anumiti indivizi din anumite clase sociale, cu o bogatie de detalii pe care tu, ca cititor, trebuie sa le urmaresti cu fidelitate. Concluziile (i.e., tipurile de interpretari), de orice natura ar fi acestea, trebuie sa le traga (produca) cititorul si numai cititorul. Artistul nu trebuie sa ii spuna acestuia (si nici nu ii spune, de altfel, in cazul lui Upton Sinclair) ce anume sa creada sau sa simta.

8. Despre valentele politice ale artei

Andrei, tu spui ca:

teoreticienii artei feministe chiar asta vor sa spuna, ca mesajul ‘politic’ si ‘lupta sociala’ sint importante intr-o opera de arta.” Mai mult, spui ca nu judeci “niciodata o opera de arta doar folosind criteriul estetic”.

Am avut o discutie pe aceasta tema chiar cu autoare feministe. Chestiunea “mesajului politic” priveste un anumit tip de lectura, anume cel tropologic, in care pot explora motivatiile ascunse sau efectele unei opere de arta in viata unei comunitati. Desigur ca pot face psihanaliza sau genealogie si sa detectez motivatii ascunse in Nabokov si Lolita lui. Desigur ca pot face si analiza marxista cu privire la Madame Bovary (recent re-lecturata de mine, de altfel) si sa expun inegalitatile de clasa prezente acolo. Dar sa fac EXCLUSIV asta, sau sa trec in graba peste textul insusi (cu toate detaliile lui minutios elaborate de Flaubert, de ex., cu privire la Emma si tribulatiile ei), inseamna, cred, sa fac o nedreptate crasa operei de arta. Si asta e ceva ce chiar autoarele feministe accepta (a se vedea, de exemplu, Rita Felski, in Literature after Feminism, 2003, p. 36). Nabokov insusi sugereaza, in citeva interviuri (a se vedea colectia intitulata Strong Opinions), ca e foarte bine sa explorezi cit mai multe dimensiuni ale unei opere, dar asta numai dupa ce ai facut, cu rabdare, experienta pe care autorul acesteia te invita sa o faci. Ba chiar aceasta explorare ar putea lumina si mai bine relatiile de gen din Madame Bovary, spre exemplu, relatii mai subtile care ar putea fi trecute cu vederea in graba cu care unii tin sa aplice acestei scrieri o schema de interpretare prestabilita. Cred ca e clar, din ce am spun pina acum, ca nici eu nu judec o opera “doar folosind criteriul estetic”. Se intimpla doar ca am ferma convingere ca acesta ESTE criteriul potrivit artei IN THE FIRST PLACE. Ideea de pluralitate a interpretarilor, pe care se intimpla de asemenea sa o sustin, imi permite sa acomodez diferite lecturi ale aceluiasi text, dar cred ca exista un nivel al intepretarii fara de care intram in deriva hermeneutica.