re: visual ethics put-on
Jaakko Hucklebee (jessec@zipnet.net)
Tue, 29 Jul 1997 14:17:49 -0400
It was because Atilla suggested "putting the transparency on" somewhat
like fenestration I
gather, that I came to see transparency might not always be a problem.
Because I did rather think proximity transparency was a problem--like
Greg. Another category,
ok, then; but I also like the term "modality" or "style". Especially
"style" seems to direct
the flow of art through fashion, corporate culture, politics, and human
experience.
But what is this "put on" of the transparent, so like the glossy
slickness on the paintings in the
hotel lobby?
Two prospects I have are Kant's "out of mind experience" of art as a
ladder on the way
to the Transcendent, and Spinoza's coherency, as I understand him--
which isn't much-- of Nature.
My term for this "put on" is magnetic obscurity. Women may be better at
this than men?
The very thought of a woman putting on some transparency gets a lot of
mind share, it is a magnetic obscurity for erotic use.
There is a double-entendre to this and to who or what is being put on.
Cyperspace is also a
literal magnetic obscurity. Thus, it attracts us. This could be an
important tool: to be able
to use the space of transparency in such a way as to partially obscure
in order to reveal the
attraction rather than the image itself, as was so brutally done in the
modern era, and then go on from there. There is work to do here.
I believe I will actually associate this with color as it becomes
opaque. In my opinion, the zillions of physical
events outside of the brain which pace the seeing of a color inside of
the brain are colored as magnetic opaqueness (color) happens. This also
attracts us, alerts us, and is "out there" being put
on by nature. Why would you want a color in your head which wasn't
outside of your head? And there philosophers who agree with this
opinion, too.
For, it could be a question of understanding this attraction that could
do so much!
The levels I see as problems to begin with are homelessness as a con
game, e.g. the poor person
in NYC asking for help to get something to eat. The sort of put-ons that
scam us. And there are art scams. Their "put on" is unattractive to me.
Or the prostitute I met in DC who did not say "I want to fuck you!" she
said, "I want to party with you..." She knew how to be transparent? Gad,
she was attractive. And I've found myself homeless in a Hilton hotel,
the place was slick and attractive but not very artistic. I'm saying
that we need to find a way to make poverty attractive, to put homeless
people in artistic hotels, to help them be attractive; we need to be
able to understand the dynamics of a "cool" as that which is attractive
and share this with humanity-- some way that isn't phoney nor
prostituting because it is the tunning fork of spirit. And we
have this tool so naturally, magnetically obscure, a computer, to
develop this help.
Today the star attraction was Woody Allen. I saw a thousand models line
up on 60th Street
for a chance to be extras in his movie! Here, then, was the artist as
attraction provider. Good
idea, I thought. But, then, it's only a movie.
Jaakko Hucklebee
--
?_