The End! One great painting done!

16th marts 201616th marts 2016 ThomasAI

I will showcase some of the progression in painting this big ass painting. It´s oil on canvas. And yes, it is a bit Guernica inspired:-). But with modern animalistic tanks… The scale is H: 149 W: 215.

This paintings current title is “We are Animals”, but is might change. The working title was “The Wars for Peace”. If you have any good ideas, please write them down as a comment.

A late nighter with rock n´ roll, talk radio (DR P1) and the smell of turpentine.

It´s done and sold! Uz…

Thanks for looking:-)

The Orwellian art-speak.

26th februar 2016 ThomasAI

“The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns, as it were, instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink.” – George Orwell.

I was recently a guest at the fancy Louis Vuitton Foundation, Paris. It´s a truly amazing museum. A must see for all art lovers! Inside the astonishing halls, I came across some fu..ing “stupid” modern art. I know, you know – how that feels. You roll your eyes and smile sarcastically and think – WTF, is this art? Normally I just walk along to the next piece – thinking “oh dear”, but that day – I was particularly fresh and ready for a mind-boggling challenge. So I read the visitor-friendly description, and it made me wonder about the language art communicators use to inscribe “worthless” objects with symbolic, cultural and economic value. Is it just an elegant metaphysical/artistic sales pitch? Or does the meta-artistic language hold some hidden insights and teachings, which unlock new modes of perceptions?

I for one don’t know. It might just be taste and preferences, but let’s investigate the matter and find some perspectives, which can drive us towards understanding the question. Let’s start this journey on art-speak or the right term: International Art English – from a critical Orwellian perspective. I call it: The Orwellian art-speak.

Follow the trend, stupid!

My opinion on this question is, that good descriptions and titles can unlock new modes of perceptions. I found a wonderful page: Artdescriptions.com. It just gives you the cool descriptions of artistic work, but the physical objects and brand/artist names are hidden from your gaze. It´s a wonderful experiment. Check it out! But most of the time it’s a sales pitch for the work. We try to engineer a specific value into the object as we build the ideological content of any artist.

You always need to talk the talk and follow the trend. So here are some of the most important artistic buzzwords. When talking in the tongue of art-speak:

“Anti-capitalism, appropriation, artist, avant-garde, become art, blur, boundaries, but is it art? Cerebral, challenge, comment, complex, confront, consider art, contemporary, cutting-edge, daring, declare to be art, dialogue, difficult, dismantle, disrupt, disturbing, edgy, emerging artist, enigmatic, engage, establish as art, examine, expand, experimental, explore, force, gallerist, global, ground-breaking, innovative, intervene, invent, investigate, make, make a statement about, new, object, outrage, plasticity, probe, progressive, provoke, push, push (press) buttons, push the envelope, push the boundaries, push the limits, question, quirky, raise questions, redefine, refuse, retrospective, resonating, require, risky, seductive, subvert, unconventional, untitled, visual culture.”

The main point with the buzz is that you would not wanna be the opposite, like a non-provocative, plain conformist artist, with nothing to say about the world. Imagine the curator saying something like this: It´s a room devoid of reflective thought. There is no chaos and absolutely zero revolutions. No cutting-edge here. Just plain titled unseductive shit. And if it too much – you can always exit through the gift shop – and rejoin the capitalistic consumer orgy.

I do love museum/design shops! I confess it!

Here´s a quote to from a Danish art show:

”Vi ser, søger, slår itu, ødelægger, forstyrrer, laver rod og leger med kaos som en del af den kreative proces for at give et bud på en ny form, et nyt budskab. Længslen efter dekonstruktion fører til en genopfindelse af begreberne håndværk, social kunst, skulptur, maleri, performance, film, talte og skrevne ord. I et møde med andetheden sætter kunstnerne spørgsmålstegn ved deres sociale status og persona. De udstillede genstande repræsenterer en praksis, der står i modsætning til den kapitalistiske kulturs gennemkommercialiserede overflod. Ved at skubbe til de alment accepterede grænser for ideer, materialer og processer, tilføjer TRUST en ny ekstra realistisk dimension.”

It includes a lot of the markers for bullshit-buzz-words:-/ One day, maybe it would be really liberating if a curator said: “I found some cool art – and I think you should see it.” And nothing more…

Brand building – “The Artist”

This might get a bit like touching my own shit, sorry. It´s very self-reflective. Maybe too much. The brand building process: Is a special form of creative communication. The point is to make your creative vision and work common knowledge. How you talk and represent the art – influences how the brand builds its statements; As if it’s a well oiled aggressive canvas-selling PR-machine. Yes, this brand building process is indeed interconnected with a capitalistic art market. You should not refuse the obvious.

Please try to follow these guidelines:

1: Don’t oversell the art.

2: Really don’t oversell the art with fancy buzzwords.

3: Stay true and brave in your descriptions. Use Ockham’s razor… All things nonessential to the artwork must die!

Do you agreed with this Orwellian perspective?

Thanks for reading:-)

What is art? Objectively!

15th september 201523rd marts 2016 ThomasAI

What is art? The art establishment has an all-inclusive answer: anything is art if a reputed artist or museum expert says it is (the institutional concept of art – invented by George Dickies). Yes, but is it art? Today I will boldly go, where thousands have gone before me! I will cross this minefield in pursuit of an answer to the ever emerging question. What is art? Most generalisations are false, but they can give some charity and movement towards answering this fluid question. And believe it! I will come to a valid answer.

A call to objectivism: Know your urinal?

[su_quote]To evoke in oneself a feeling one has experienced, and…then, by means of movements, lines, colors, sounds or forms expressed in words, so to transmit that feeling—this is the activity of art.[/su_quote] – Leo Tolstoy (1828–1910)

I started reading philosopher-novelist Ayn Rand (1905-1982). Best known as the author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged´s. She´s objectively a mad bitch, but still let us try to give her objectivism a chance. Ayn Rand also has a “groundbreaking” alternative view on what art is. It’s an original and illuminating theory of art, which confirms the widespread view that much of today’s purported art is really not art at all. It´s called Rand’s esthetic theory and its a sharp contrast to other what-is-art-theorys.

Rand´s philosophical world view is objectivism, a philosophy for living on earth. Which, in a nutshell, is something like this:

1) The reality is objective! There is only this world, Frodo. No God. No time for socialistic/altruistic utopias. And the government is EVIL!

2) All we mere humans have, and will ever need – is the reason.

3) Your highest moral goal is your self-interest. A true libertarian call to action. You should reach your highest potential within your field of expertise. IT´s like Kant in that way.

4) Give in to capitalism and enjoy your freedom. Kill the state!

The theory is encapsulated in the hefty 539-page treatise, What Art Is: The Esthetic Theory of Ayn Rand, written and compiled by Louis Torres and Michelle Marder Kamhi. For your amusement, I will sum up 539-pages in a quick dialog:

Me: So Ayn Rand, what is art?

The goal of art is nonutilitarian and psychological in nature and its cognitive function is to bring man’s fundamental concepts and values to the perceptual level of his consciousness. This allows man to objectively grasp the scope of the arts directly with his reason. Use art to live on this planet!

Me: Yeeeah great! That sounds like a no bullshit approach to understanding this age old question. Very well, Ayn – What isn’t art in today’s art world?

The last hundred years have been a mistake. All modern and postmodern crap must be erased from the history of art! The twentieth century is a giant artistic failure. It is not art.

Me: Okay… Oh, Ayn… It started off so well… Thank you, Ayn – and goodnight.

Me: Let´s try another objectivist…

A Pragmatic “satirical” Objectivist:

[su_quote]I don’t think art is elite or mysterious. I don’t think anybody can separate art from politics. The intention to separate art from politics is itself a very political intention.[/su_quote] – Ai Weiwei (1957-), Chinese artist.

It´s not and easy task to find an objective concept of art. But, not quite impossible. Danish post.doc and art critic Torben Sangild have a refreshing way of looking objectively on artworks – through something he calls an objective sensibility.

Does object´s have feelings? No! Object´s don´t have feelings, you won´t find a sad or angst stone, but they do express feelings. And in that expression there is an objective sensibility. “Objective” because it’s all about the artistic work and not the mental state, history or intentions of the artist. “Sensibility” because it’s about how we express´s our feelings and how we sense the world. It´s all about the being-in-the-world, issues. And “dasein´s” looking-at-the-world, issues.

Feelings and objectivity usually don’t coagulate in any field, but these opposites cross paths in the world of art, according to Sangild. In natural science, there are distinct definitions, box thinking, and experimentation and the aims are to falsify the governing theories. The art world doesn’t falsify their theories, it is more likely that they rebel or get inspired by other artists. Some might seek deconstruction or blast themselves into the oblivion of pure ideas of intrepid strangeness.

The first rule of art is, that is isn’t a qualitative part of an object. It is more likely that art is a perspective or a frame, we view objects and specific phenomenons through. When we give in to this certain perspective/frame, we extract a condensed meaning, and aesthetical sensibility out of the object. And call it art!

Seeing something as art is like looking through binoculars, and remember there are many kinds of binoculars in this world (epistemology speaking). There are certain kinds of events, objects and phenomenons that are more likely to be recognised as art. They attract the concept of art into their realm more easily. According to Sangild, these attractors are off course different in nature, some of them draws you to the concept of art, and others to another concept – for example, kitchen items. Let’s put it in Kantian terms: The “Ding an Sich/thing-in-itself” need´s and want´s to be taken to the realm of “Ding für uns/thing-for-us”. And we humans like to give things a name, purpose and meaning.

For example: If we stick to well-known art forms like painting and sculpture they have strong attractors because of their long tradition. If we look at photography, video, performance, happenings, installation and so on. It´s not always obvious that it is art because they lack between 700 to 5000 years of tradition. The attractors are not that potent if it’s a new kind of art form. A very potent attractor is if the artist is recognised and honored by museums, markets or galleries. These institutions form a strong attractor to the concept of art.

Ai Weiwei states that art attracts politics, and politics attracts art. How do we make sense of this connection? I think we need a much closer view on these attractors and within what parameters they wield their sphere of influence. We need to understand how art works affect us. Which attractors do these objects use knowingly? To give some answers to these questions, we need professor David Favrholdt (f. 1931-2012) and his parameter theory on art.

The Great Dictator´s Theory of Art:

[su_quote]If one general statement can be made about the art of our times, it is that one by one the old criteria of what a work of art ought to be have been discarded in favor of a dynamic approach in which everything is possible[/su_quote] – Peter Selz (1919- )

Marcel Duchamp’s urinal “The Fountain” from 1917, started an intense debate about, what art really was. It pissed people off when common items well-known for their function could be baptised into being art. George Dickies institutional concept of art made the urinal by giving it, it’s artsy blessings. The art institutions gave the trend a name “readymades” and made money from it. We all know that – the emperor has no clothing on. And the rest is history.

Can we create a definition, that defines art? NO! Most people will say, like Peter Selz, that there are no boundaries for art. When everything is possible – how can we give a clear and distinct definition of, what art is?

There is only one working theory and that is the institutional concept of art. If the art world gives its blessings. It’s art! So simple. This is a wonderful “dictator-theory” and the strength is, that its ready for all future changes. Favrholdt hated the “dictator-theory” because it shifts the view away from the art objects over to the power-hungry art institutions. The thing that makes an art object is no longer the art object itself, but all the fuzz around the art object. The “dictator-theory” is great at defining art but says nothing about the art objects. Favrholdt created a theory that is based on the art objects and leaves out the all-signifying art institutions. It´s a brave theory that tries to explain why some art is better than other kinds of art.

The system builder’s perspective:

[su_quote]Unfortunately, evolutionism has reached a point where it now dominates all of our art institutions. […] There is a difference between a more or less conscious search for new ways of expression, because you have grown tired of the existing ones, and making it mandatory for such new ways to be sought out.[/su_quote]

Favrholdt is a true system-builder! The starting point for his theory of art is that it’s based on the product, not the artist, historical context or any other paradigm. Loosely translated, Favrholdt says this about his theory:

In characterizing a work of art, you can identify different aspects that apply to it, which is commonly characteristic of any work of art. Sangild called it attractors. But these traits can occur in different levels of strength, and for this reason; I use the word parameter to accurately describe these traits. When you’re looking at art you can now ascribe a value to the different parameters. You’re giving an art object points like it’s a movie review or a restaurant.

Let’s jump to Favrholdt´s list of relevant parameters. There might be more parameters, but that´s another discussion. The following table shows what Favrholdt came up with – accompanied by a brief explanation:

Integration	Concerning: The interaction between the parts to form a whole.
Diversity and complexity	Concerning: The set of elements, that come together in the artwork.
Technology	Concerning: The technical skills that should be relatively invisible, and their consistency with the idea and personal expression of the artist.
Aesthetic beauty qualities	Concerning: The aesthetic beauty of the artistic experience.
Individual embossing	Concerning: The imprint of humanity, showing that the artwork has gone through a consciousness.
Repeatability	Concerning: Artistic experiences that are equally good every time.
Intellectual appeal	Concerning: The ideological content.
Emotional appeal	Concerning: The emotional effects.
Other suggestive qualities	Concerning. Ex. ugliness as an aesthetic instrument.
The Ineffable message	Concerning: The ineffable message which by its very nature is transcending our common language.

Favrholdt´s parameter theory is all about giving artworks grades on a scale from ex. 1-10. If we can give our children grades, we can surely give artworks grades. The artworks don’t need to score high in all parameters to be a great work of art. It would actually be very unlikely to score high in all parameters. But we would need the wisdom of the crowd to justify the points on the scale. Right, about 1024 people must have evaluated the artwork. This theory can´t work if it´s a single individual, professional or not – that does the evaluation. And the evaluation would still be subject to statistical uncertainty and trends. The last thing to do is to add the numbers and view the result:

Defining parameters: Location and time! If the art work is placed in a fancy gallery or museum it is most likely art. Time: If we, as a nation has viewed the work as art for a long period of time. It´s most likely art. Remember all evaluations of art are time-specific and not everlasting.

0-15 – Crappy art or a well-placed teacup. This score means that it’s not a great world defining the piece of art. We are all artist! You shall not pass, said Gandalf to this artwork!

16-20 – Some artistic quality but time will tell if it´s metaphysical destruction breaks through the cracks.

21-30 – Yes, but is it art? There is specific artistic quality here. If it scores high in some parameters it´s a great piece of art.

31-40 – A great idea! It would look great on my wall.

41-50 – Great art! No dought about it.

51-70 – The wow-factor is present and its abundantly clear that this is amazing art.

71-90 – Cthulhu will make a fart uttering in a thousand years of darkness. Thou this is really great art! This shit is the stuff of legends.

91-100 – The rapture is upon us. Save yourself! The Elder Gods will arise! The Call of Cthulhu will sound through the cracks of our fragile oblivion. This shit piece of artwork will charge your life forever.

Objectivism quickly turns into inter-subjectivism, but that is objective enough for me today. This system is hard to learn and it´s not always easy to remember all the parameters, but the great advantage of this system is that it forces you to think about the artwork from many different angles.

Abolish the dictator theory of art and give in to the Parameter Theory and the wisdom of the crowd. There will always be a degree of conflict in the great battle about what art is. BUT remember: It does not matter how old, famous or pricey the artwork is – the only thing that matters is: How it makes you feel!

A pragmatists view:

To judge whether a work of art is any good (objectively), ask the following questions about it to see how many can be answered with a yes:

Does it express successfully what it’s intending to express?
Does it amaze you in a different way each time you look at it?
Does it grow in stature?
Does it continually mature?
Does its visual impact of mysterious, pure power increase every day?
Is it unforgettable?

Good day to you, sir:-)

What´s art really meant to do?

20th juni 201530th juni 2015 ThomasAI

There is widespread agreement that art is very important. But why? That’s a somewhat troublesome question. Let’s boil it down to three core types of ideology. I like to build classification systems that brutally simplifies the strangeness and multitude of views on art. It’s gonna be a little simplistic, so eat a grain of salt:-) So what is art really meant to do? That’s the question. I will also show three new steampunked sculptures. So let’s begin:

The Therapeutic Doctrine:

Tagline: “The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls” – Pablo Picasso

You believe that art is a tool, like a hammer and sickle. Art can solve problems! But what kind of problems? This doctrine thinks that art helps us to cope with a variety of cognitive frailties most humans suffer from: it should help us to understand ourselves, empathise with others, guide us to morality, console us for our sorrows and function as an agent of hope. Awesome! It’s a mental drug that gives us an understanding of the human condition. Cool! Remember you are not doing art an injustice by ascribing a clear function to it. In a way, it helps the struggling artists and saves them from irrelevance and the melancholy of uncertainty. It ends the idea that artists exist merely as a distraction or and mysterious sideshow to the main business of love and work.

Through most of human history, art has been in the service of our many religious inventions. It helps to communicate your viewpoint if you have a good narrative, sound and pictures to show the viewing public. The alliance between art and religion helped with the problems of theology, it should now assist us with the challenges of psychology. It´s an alternate self-help book with a different kind of language. Art means language combined with an understanding of your feelings! How will the therapeutic doctrine think about this first newly made monster:

[su_custom_gallery source=”media: 3887″ limit=”1″ link=”image” width=”900″ height=”900″][su_custom_gallery source=”media: 3851″ limit=”1″ link=”image” width=”800″ height=”800″ title=”always”][/su_custom_gallery]

This horrid creature is called Holy Earth and it’s a small sculpture that preys on your inconsistent morality. The recipe for this monster is: Steel wires, a small funny looking stone found on Lolland – DK, network cables, 10cm*10cm recycled piece of wood, ½ jigsaw blade, two crosses from a souvenir shop in Jerusalem, real holy earth from Jerusalem, acrylic paint tubes, a small part of a canon objective EF 25-85, modelling paste and a small part of my former ID card for DR – Danish Broadcasting Corporation.

I tried to combine religious symbols (the holy earth and the two crosses) with constructs of pop-cultural symbols (network cables, peace symbol and a deformed Rolling Stones logo – the great licking tongue). From the view of the therapeutic doctrine, we are cultural Frankenstein’s, engineered and sometimes reanimated by several different cultural parts. This process is called life! It leaves us a bit confused and lost in a state of absurdity. BUT there is hope! This sculpture recommends to put down the sword, shit a bit on the media corporations and put on a bronze cape. And try to lick the world a bit! Try to imagine how you would look as a sculpture made in this way? What iconic symbols sway your life? Are your feet made by internet cables, miniature shovels or dead babies (metaphorically speaking)?

This doctrine covers the subjective and intersubjective value of artistic work. In short we are all subjects cursed with a degree of solipsistic experience, but sometimes we agree, and in that agreement we find intersubjectivity. ERGO the arts teaches us how to live our lives. It´s kinda close to K. E. Løgstrups (1905-81) view on art. Which in a one-liner goes like this: The arts can supplement and expand our daily horizon, beyond the chores of daily life.

The Elitist Doctrine:

Tagline: “There’s a crack in everything, that’s how the light gets in” – Leonard Cohen.

It’s all about the arts and its inherent symbolic power! It’s a Hornslethian fuck you to the art haters – because arts here ‘for art’s sake’ and its well-funded by rich individuals, art marketers and powerful historic institutions. Global art sales are booming with 360 billion (kr) worldwide, so it’s going rather well. This doctrine follows a class code that talks to two kinds of capital – the ´Bourdieuian` financial and cultural capital. If you know the code, you can enter into the art-Lovers paradise and have a feast. And remember your value is defined by your brand. If you can’t play the game, run along, shut up and work! Let’s put on the glasses of The Elitist and look at this second newly created monster:

[su_custom_gallery source=”media: 3888″ limit=”1″ link=”image” width=”900″ height=”900″][su_custom_gallery source=”media: 3851″ limit=”1″ link=”image” width=”800″ height=”800″ title=”always”][/su_custom_gallery]

The tall thin legged Digital Defender is made by: Steel wires, acrylic paint tubes, parts of a Canon objective EF 25-85, a jigsaw blade, an Apple iPod, parts of an old Panasonic camera, parts of a Samsung phone, modelling paste, network cable wires and a bronze samovar top. Let’s put up a dialogue between The Elitist and The Cultural Elitist. There are in a gallery and it’s a parody:

The Elitist: Look it has the thin legs like an Alberto Giacometti sculpture. How joyful!

The Museum Inspector: Yes, it is a wonderful creative sculpture with great this to the movement of poststructuralist anarchism.

The Elitist: Uhh poststructuralist anarchism that sound expensive! Oh look an Apple Ipod, I have shares in that amazing company. Networth, about seven million dollars!

The Elitist is truly excited now.

The Elitist: Is it a well-known artist?

The Museum Inspector: No, he´s an upcoming artist from Copenhagen. He´s unknown to the art world.

The Elitist: Oh really, then it’s a bit of a gamble to buy. Do you think the price will rise in the coming years, Mr. Inspector?

The Museum Inspector: I can’t promise anything, but the sculpture “Digital Defender” carries an inspiring narrative about digital freedom, mass-surveillance and building on the soil of our cultural history.

The Elitist: Yes yes post-something anar…kicking… right. I’m a betting banker, not a philosopher. Well fuck it! I like it. Its brave and true, like me. I can always put it in my storage compartment and wait 5 years. Its really cheap now. Its a high risk bet, I like IT!

From a democratic viewpoint it’s a highly defeatist and pernicious way of looking at art. But it is how the world works! Sad but true… This doctrine covers a quick look at the market’s view on artistic work and the employed cultural elites choices in what artworks they promote. Art in itself, is in a philosophically way like Herbert Marcuse (1898-1979) would define it: Only as an autonomous agent – outside the repressive stroke of the principles of reality – can art truly contradict the existing systems of society. ERGO Art follows the invisible self-regulating hand of Adam Smith!

The Collective Doctrine:

Tagline: “Without tradition, art is a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Without innovation, it is a corpse.” – Winston Churchill.

The Collective Doctrine thinks that, the arts is a reflection on the specific society that created the artworks. Within the human genome there is a urge to make art, to create something out of nothing, build a bridge or a elevator into space. This passion starts with the desire to preserve. In short – art banks our collective winnings. Your tradition is really a mechanism to keep precious things and our best insights, in good condition and make them publicly accessible. We have to share our artistic diamonds and the experience that follows. But if it’s not memorable and renewable for you – as a viewing subject! Just move along to the next corpse, and see, if you can find the decadence or a gentle greatness in the work. This doctrine processes the value of artistic work within a specific society – as a portrait of it. It studies how these portraits are connected through time as concept, material and ideer. Lets pick up the glasses of The Collective and look at this third newly created monster.

[su_custom_gallery source=”media: 3889″ limit=”1″ link=”image” width=”900″ height=”600″][su_custom_gallery source=”media: 3851″ limit=”1″ link=”image” width=”800″ height=”800″ title=”always”][/su_custom_gallery]

What does this sculpture say about our society? The Collective Doctrine needs society to respond to the artwork, so most of what I write is highly speculative because it’s a contemporary piece. Please take it as an art historical thought experiment or a method for analysis within The Collective Doctrine. It’s very much like an academic investigation. You start by contemplating these questions, and slowly you will discover the genealogy of the artwork. I will give some short answers to a list of questions regarding the artwork. There are almost endless possibilities of questions.

Danger! We are slowly entering the door, that leads to the realm of the art historians. And it´s a scary DOOR!!!

Concerning the society that created the artwork:

Who was in power when this was created?

“The Danish Social Democratic Party”

How did they come into power?

“They came into power through democratic elections in 2011-15.”

What historical and biosocial conditions affects the creator/artist?

“The work was created in the bosom of a rich Scandinavian welfare state. At the end of an economic crisis (Hopefully). Currently, the artist is was not employed.”

Who created it and what is known about them?

“I created it! I´m unknown, but that can change. And all modern artists leaves clear digital and analog traces.”

Why was this work of art commissioned and/or created?

“The creative drive commissioned it. It´s like the wall telling you what to do. It´s strange metaphysics, art-speak or an aesthetic sensibility.”

Concerning the specific artwork:

How was it made? (Material & technical rundown)

“This strange creature is made by: Steel wires, real petrified fossils, mussels, network cables, modelling paste, parts of a Samsung phone, small screws, cutting blade from a meatgrinder and rocks with holes in them. Its crudely made by glueing a lot, adding modelling paste and paint.”

Where was this meant to be seen originally?

“Unknown.”

What is the artists, kurators and museums inspectors intentions? (known/unknown)

“My intentions are… telling a story through a sculpture and see if people get it. The binary pairs of old vs. new and humanism vs. transhumanism. I try to build a narrative, so each piece of junk relates to each other.”

How does the artwork place itself, in an art historical context?

“We stand on the shoulders of giants. It’s too contemporary to put it an art historical context. BUT it tries to follow a the postmodern trend with strong ties to surrealism and junk art.”

Is there a trend in this field of art, that apply to this artwork?

“The sustainability trend and the building of environmental consciousness. We have to prevent total climate crisis.”

Concerning the aesthetics?

Which concept of beauty apply to the artwork?

“It falls within a very modern conception of beauty:-)”

In the parameters of The Collective Doctrine art is, what art-institutions call art. It´s an institutional concept of art. where institutions have the power to baptize art and through that event make it legitimate and respected by other art institutions. And so it goes… on and on…

Thanks for reading:-)

Into the Archive – Old Sculptures from bygone Youth

13th maj 20152nd juni 2015 ThomasAI

The game is afoot. I made a promise in my last post and I always keep my promises (and debt). Here are some old and some new steampunked sculptures. The picture quality is way better, because I have a photo-tent and semi-pro lighting now. Aha…Look isn’t it marvelous:-)

[su_carousel source=”media: 3695,3690,3689,3688,3692″ limit=”10″ link=”image” target=”blank” width=”800″ height=”800″ items=”1″ speed=”400″][su_carousel source=”media: 3644,3645,3646,3647,3648,3649,3650,3651″ limit=”37″ link=”image” height=”600″ items=”1″ speed=”400″][/su_carousel]

Some sculptures are old others are totally new. I call them steampunked sculptures as a catchall term, it’s a concept in search of a visual identity. It could also be “Remade”/Ready Mades, but that would give credit to Marcel Duchamp and that is not feasible. The readymade tradition is stupidly strange, blown out of proportion and kind a boring (I think!). I see my steampunked sculptures as a intersection of technology and romance, humanism versus transhumanisme and sustainability or catastrophe. Its my old broken stuff reintegrated into this world as art, or as a comment on the epic battle of the late twentieth century. Or maybe the 21. century:-)

[su_carousel source=”media: 3694,3693,3691″ limit=”10″ link=”image” target=”blank” height=”800″ items=”1″ speed=”400″][su_carousel source=”media: 3644,3645,3646,3647,3648,3649,3650,3651″ limit=”37″ link=”image” height=”600″ items=”1″ speed=”400″][/su_carousel]

Our time is a mythic time, we are all chimeras in a way, theorized and fabricated hybrids of machine and organism; in short, we are cyborgs. OR Just machine-men with machine hearts and Excel brains. If we hide the real drama and give in to fiction, its as Isaac Asimov puts it:

[su_quote]In a properly automated and educated world, then, machines may prove to be the true humanizing influence. It may be that machines will do the work that makes life possible and that human beings will do all the other things that make life pleasant and worthwhile[/su_quote]

But if we give in to the real drama and hide the fiction, its something quite different and far from what Isaac Asimov, imagined in Robot visions. The 21st century is the age of crisis management. We have five great problems: Global pollution, global warming, biogenetics, inequality and a rising population. The machine mind does not isolate humankind from the great problems of of our time – it plunges him more deeply into them. Is that good, bad or beyond?

Beyond I say! There are now no more horizons we can migrate to, no promised land, no great escape. And we can’t wait for space travel, the great and final frontier. We have to face the dissolution of the horizons, and in that very moment experience the collisions, terrific collisions, not only of peoples but also of their cultural mythologies. I try to explain these collisions though my art in a direct way. In a nutshell: Art does not solve problems – it confronts them in a philosophical way. More on this matter later…

All things have small beginnings… right? I still need to show my workspace. Next upcoming blogpost is new sculptures and my tiny workspace. Thanks for reading:-)

Thomas Akhøj Ibsen

Kunstner, kunstklinker & Cand.Mag. i filosofi og kulturformidling