jorge.cortell.net

Wednesday May 2nd, I had the pleasure to meet Fernando Sabater at Instituto Cervantes, NY.

The conversation was lighthearted and included many anecdotes and trvia, but also a good dose of Philosophy and Psychology wisdom and aphorisms (like those by Andrés Newman). Here are some delicious quotes by him:

• Don’t attack, don’t comply
• Childhood is always bad: wether because it was bad and left you a trauma, or because it was good and it frustrates you to leave it behind
• Happyness is also hard to bear
• Skepticism grows, and that’s why when I am about to make a statement (particularly if it is a grand one) I end up laughing. That’s why although I was going to become a great philoshoper, I ended up a simple professor
• The difficulty of leaving the pack
• I don’t have arguments to support good things… just try them!
• One phylosophizes in order not to stop asking questions
• Do not be shy on contradictions

And others quoted by him:

We live dramatically in a non-dramatic world

Santayana

Tell me the lie you consider more worthy of being true

Mon Faust (Paul Valéry)

If the young knew and the old could!

Old French proverb

Patent portas

Wrongly attributed by him to Epictetus (it is actually by Marcus Tullius Cicero)

Things are changing so much, I don’t even know if I’m on our side anymore

Anonymous quote after the Spanish Civil War

The difference between a civilized and a barbaric man is that the civilized man is willing to die for that in which he does not completely believes in

Isaiah Berlin

I know Paris “with Poe, in a dream”

Lovecraft (… but Poe had never been to Paris either!)

I propose to add to the Fundamental Bill of Rights: a right to contradict oneself, and a right to leave

Baudelaire

So, at the end of his talk, and since he had translated some of E. M. Cioran’s work and knew him personally, I asked him one question about the Romanian philosopher that has haunted me for decades: given his line of thought, why didn’t Cioran kill himself?

Sabater explained to me that he himself tried to be more of a nihilist and negativist in his early twenties, but Cioran told him: you do not look like a nihilist, with that body. And answering my question, Sabater told me how Cioran knew he could always kill himself, so he always left it for another day.

Since I could not get a hold of tickts for New Museum’s Seven on Seven, I decided to make the most out of my day yesterday (defying my cold), so I even had time to visit the NYC anarchist book fair, at Judson Church (Washington Square).

I wish I had had more time to devote to exploring all the literature (great and aweful) on display. But at least I had time to notice:

• How little people attending knew about anarchy (imagine those outside)
• How deliciously ironic that it took place in what used to be a church
• How much anarchy is related to art (indeed, as a matter of fact, one of the books I purchased was NAASN‘s “Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies 2.2011″)

In Spain, the conservative PP government is planning to make “passive resistance” a crime (as well as organizing demonstrations using internet technologies).

I have these 4 criminals’ magnetic puppets on my fridge. 2 were outlawed (and had to flee) by German Nazis. 1 had to flee Spanish dictatorship because he was a Communist. And the other one was thrown in jail by British occupation forces for “passive resistance”.

I will not let anyone walk through my mind with their dirty feet.

Mahatma Gandhi

On September 28, 2011, Hou Hanru, Director of Exhibitions and Public Programs at the San Francisco Art Institute said on a lecture (Curator’s Perspective) in New York:

I think the worst exhibition in the world is the exhibition that is organized like a book. We see this a lot, an exhibition that takes the artwork as an illustration of a concept. I think an exhibition is not necessary for this: frankly, it’s too expensive. Through exhibition making we must spend the money, time and energy to produce a language that can not be replaced by other forms.

Interested by this argument, I watched the recordings of The Critical Edge of Curating conference held at the Guggenheim Museum November 3-4, 2011. Here are some more thought provoking quotes:

For many curators and artist working today, the exhibition no longer serves as the culminating manifestation of their work. For some, it is a mere step along a trajectory of research and planning. For others it has become an entirely dispensable model.

Anton Vidokle  (e-flux) said:

I see the artist as someone who sees art as an integral part of human social life and who can discover or renounce a social identity in his or her encounter with art.

I think that in the future, the art of our time may very well become incomprehensible because of how incredibly historically contingent contemporary art seems to be. In order to understand today’s art in the future you may have to reproduce the very specific context of our time in minutia. TV shows, fashion magazines, Hollywood movies, popular music, comic, supermarket circulars, and so forth, which is something far beyond what a didactic museum wall text does for the Renaissance paintings, for example.

No wise man ever wished to be younger

Live everyday of your life

Jonathan Swift

Atlanta’s Hartsfield airport has been having one of those useless scanners that show passengers naked for a while now. But the last time I was there, they were being tested, and most passengers did not go through them. 

Today, though, as I approached the security line, I saw that next to every metal detector, there was one of those scanners. “Wow, this is getting worse”, I thought, while seeing how almost everybody was going through the scanners. 

When my turn came, I stepped in front of the metal detector, and the female TSA agent in front of the scanner told me: 

– Sir, you need to go through here.

– No, I don’t. –I replied– I prefer to go through the metal detector.

– Everybody has to go through here – she replied while a very large woman, a child, and an old man were being told by another (male) TSA agent to go through the metal detector.

– Obviously that is not true – I reply, looking at the line being formed in front of the metal detector.

Sensing a growing discomfort in my interlocutor, and not feeling like the situation called for a confrontation, I decided to explain further:

– I have medical, political, and personal objections to the use of those scanners, particularly on me.

– This sign shows there is no need for concern, sir – she stubbornly tells me, turning a sign that was not readily visible by passengers towards me.

The misleading sign basically said (too bad she would not let me take a picture) something along the lines that the scanner was safe, and it software allowed TSA agents to guarantee our safety. No mention of political, privacy, misuse, or medical concerns.

– Still, I refuse to go through the scanner, and since the metal detector is right here, and working, I prefer to go through the metal detector like those people.

– You then will have to be patted down by a male TSA agent. Is that OK? –She says.

– I don’t see those people who have gone through the metal detector before me being patted down.

– Sir, those are the regulations: if you opt-out you need to go through the metal detector and you need to be patted down.

I decided there was no use in arguing with her regarding the correct use and meaning of the word “need”. I also decided that the accuracy of her claims could be checked later, because going through the trouble of doing it on the spot could make me loose my flight, so I agreed, and went through the metal detector.

The TSA male agent standing by the metal detector told me as soon as I went through (without a “beep” or issue):

– Sir, you need to stand here –right next to him and the detector; there goes the “need” again.

I obediently stand where he points.

– ”Male opt-out on line 14-15!” –he calls for through his intercom.

And I wait there.

And wait some more.

And he calls again.

And I wait. 

And in the meantime, several people go through the metal detector without pat-downs. All kinds of ages, races, genders…

And wait some more.

I move about 3 inches to check my carryon luggage, shoes, laptop, phone, watch and wallet, waiting for me at the end of the object x-ray scanner, to make sure nobody takes anything “by mistake” (since the people that are “taking care of our security” do not seem to care about our property).

– Sir, I asked you to stand right here –he reminds me, pointing to what seem to be directly my feet.

I don’t know if my look conveyed the “WTF” correctly. I wish I could have typed it on my phone’s LED screen app.

He calls again.

I wait.

And wait.

Some 30 minutes later (one thing one learns after decades of air travel and security checkpoints is that there is no point in worrying about missing the flight once you are “on your way”) a female TSA agent comes and says “you pat him down, I got the line”.

So the male TSA agent, very professionally explains to me the whole procedure (his explaining took about double the time the procedure itself), and asks me several times if I understand and if I am OK with that, adding that we can go to a private screening room if I feel uncomfortable going through that in public.

I do feel uncomfortable in public, pat down or not, so the private screening room does not offer me any relief.

Then my luggage gets “screened” and a particle sample taken from my clothes is run through the explosives detector.

All that because I dared to choose? to exercise my rights? to speak up and stand up for what I believe?

I don’t care how difficult fascism (yes, I understand the severity of the word, know its history, and chose it accordingly) makes my life. I will fight, take it, or flee. But I am NOT jumping through their loop. And I will not keep quiet.

[Note: I am writing this while I wait to board my plane. On the TV screen, the news of yet another school shooting. And the CNN anchor woman asks "time for students to carry guns in campus to protect themselves?" WTF!! Yet, no word about the annoying uselessness of outrageously expensive airport security, who by the way NEVER stopped any "terrorist attempt"]

To top it off, I have missed the CUNY Graduate Center talk “The Brain” by Richard Axel and Lawrence F. Abbott.

Yesterday I attended WhiteBox’s exhibition closing party. The invitation said:

Author and curator Raul Zamudio in conversation with Mookie Tenembaum.

Please join us at White Box for the closing reception of DISILLUSIONISM, and to engage in a stimulating conversation between Raul Zamudio and Mookie Tenembaum at 8pm sharp. Mookie will be presenting his new artist book, Paranoia. Malbec wines and truffles will be served.

Although I am grateful for the invitation, and it sure was an interesting event, some things just beg to be commented. Here are some curious trivia about the evening:

• I met Igor(?), the Russian man who “saved the gallery’s ass” (according to the Director, J. Puntes). The gallery’s website hosting company (Dreamhost) was hacked and passwords were stolen. As a result, their website got redirected to what they like to say it was a “porn site” (although in reality it was a rogue pharmaceutical online store). And since nobody remembered the FTP address or password, their site was “kidnapped” for two days, until Igor finally fixed it.
• I found Mr. Tenembaum’s work interesting, slap-in-the-face wake up calls, quite literal, and obvious. Yet, when I commented this to him, in a good Argentinian way, he told me “it’s all subjective, there is no way I can experience what it is to be you as there is no way you can experience what it is to be me”. Sure. No wonder their country is the shrink factory of the world.
• The stimulating conversation was supposed to start at 8pm sharp. Which in the art world seems to mean 8:45pm.
• Even more funny: their scrambling to get the audio for the projection to work, which obviously they had to subsequently mute because otherwise nobody could hear the stimulating conversation. It was also quite absurd to see them wrestle with a light beam, which they tried to direct at the panelists’ faces, completely blinding them, for the higher good of “recording it all on video”.
• The truffles were cheese and nuts, by the way. Weird how some people off the street just saw what was going on inside, went in, took some wine and cheese, and left, not even caring about the art work being displayed. Sad. Reality.

But, in the end a fun, non-stuffy, keep-it-real evening. Too bad they made so many efforts to keep-it-real. Too many, if you ask me.

On Saturday morning, as I was walking towards the gym on Park Avenue, I saw waves of young adults (although acting like teenagers or frat boys) wearing green (some just a t-shirt or sweater, some a full leprechaun costume) on a procession towards their favorite Irish watering hole to “celebrate” St. Patricks Day in the only way that they seem to believe to be appropriate, besides a 5th Ave. official parade: drink until you pass out.

This oversimplification is getting out of hand.

Simplistically but efficiently explained in Zeitgeist the movie (watch here), agricultural-astronomical events were usurped by religious (mostly Christian, as I will explain later why) holy-days, which in turn are being usurped by consumer days, and in order to do so, icons and symbols have been used.

Christmas is believed by many people to be a holiday celebrating the birth of Jesus. But Jesus (if at all) would have been born in spring, not winter. Christians decided to take a pagan agricultural celebration, and turn it into “their” celebration. Modern versions of this include such non-sense as the German Christmas tree tradition, Santa Claus, etc. All this symbolized by the colors green (the tree), red and mainly white (snow). The same can be explained for Valentine’s day (appropriating the color red and heart symbol thanks to the greeting card industry), the Astarte fertility celebration and Spring Equinox turned Easter (multicolored and chocolate coated by the food industry), or the harvest pagan festivity and All Saints turned into Halloween (a funky mix of orange, pumpkins and horror).

Why and how did that happen? As Kira explains:

When Christianity sought to stamp out Paganism because it threatened its sovereignty, they took on a lot of their customs in order to make Pagans feel more comfortable converting. The issue was never spirituality, it was power. They wanted as many converts as possible. Constantine saw the benefit of making Christianity the national religion because he saw how their numbers were ever increasing. He saw if he didn’t convert, and didn’t make Christianity acceptable to his people, there would be riots. Riots mean soldiers, and soldiers cost money. Not to mention the amount he would lose in the lives of his people, which meant decrease in tribute and taxes. 

Constantine followed the line many conquerors and kings have taken before him: the Greeks, Macedonians, etc. He saw the importance of holy days and festivals for Paganism, and knew that would lock in new believers to this new national religion. To this day Christians celebrate Pagan holidays, though they choose only to see their religious importance. These holidays have been around for so long, no one wants to change anything, and to do so would even be considered inappropriate, even though it would also be accurate.

But when we take that into the next level (consumerism), we end up with an absurd line of source-result, and even worst: oversimplification.

So, Spring Equinox becomes Astarte, which becomes Easter, which becomes colored chocolate eggs.

As at the end of the day I look at the young men and (mostly, due to their usually lower endurance of alcohol) women on the side walk, wasted, throwing up, or worse, in bed with a stranger, I wonder how easy it is to be manipulated by power and money (which usually go hand in hand) short-sighted interests, by the simple formula: natural significant event turned into religious holiday, turned into consumer holiday, turned into expected (even if irrationally damaging) grupal behavior.

I say:

embrace ancient wisdom if you wish, but fuck ignorant tradition.

A few days ago, in a meeting at the Setai Hotel in NY, Michael (with over 3 decades of experience working with US and Spanish corporations) perfectly described what is like to do business between the USA and Spain:

A struggle between American arrogance and Spanish pride

Last week I went to 3 exhibitions/events that have allowed me to see the importance of context in the interpretation (and enjoyment) of a work of art. Note that I differentiate “interpretation” and “enjoyment”, although for many of us, those two concepts go hand in hand. But this is just a short post, so the Phenomenological Aesthetics will have to wait (you can read Dewey, Hartmann, Adorno, Ortega y Gasset, Sartre, etc, etc in the meantime )

The first one was the opening of Enrico David’s Head Gas. A by-invitation only event, Mr. David talked and tried to explain about his work being shown at New Museum’s small Studio 231. The first impression his work caused was completely corroborated by Mr. David’s own futile explanations of his “mostly self-portraits” “during hurricane Irene while on vacation at the Hamptons”. But the best explanation I heard of the whole show was by excellent art critic Nebula, standing next to me, who said:

He tip-toed over his own work

Enough said.

The second was Young Jean Lee’s Theater Company UNTITLED FEMINIST SHOW N.Y. Premiere at the Baryshnikov Arts Center.

The program explained the very interesting author/director Young Jean Lee’s intentions quite well, and sure enough, full-nudity all show long did not become a point in itself, nor a shock mechanism, but a statement, part of the discourse, and eventually proof that feminism is NOT about looks.

An incredible show, one of the most interesting performances I have ever seen on stage, with a powerful while subtle message… one word away from perfection (substitute “feminism” for “womanhood”, since they are not the same and most of the performance refers to the latter, and you have a perfect show-description-concept).

The third was the Guggenheim Museum’s 7 hour finale of Maurizio Cattelan’s “All”. Apart from the live 10-15 minute interventions by an impressive roster of commentators (Arthur Danto, Adam McEwen, Virginia Rutledge, Doryun Chong, Aquila Theatre, Marc Etkind, Francis Naumann, Nancy Northup, Jamieson Webster, George Vecsey, Donelle Woolford, Michael Rush, Slater Bradley, Matt Wrbican, Rick Moody, Aquila Theatre, Sarah Murray, Mark Taylor, Drew Daniel, David Lipsky, Robert Boyd, Stewart Home, Thomas Lawson, Tehching Hsieh and Sandhini Poddar, Steven Schwartz, Tracey Emin, Not an Alternative, Proenza Schouler and Harmony Korine, Matmos, Amy Hollywood, Pierre Huyghe and Philippe Parreno, Sina Najafi and Simon Critchley, and Courtney Love), the center (and only) piece of the exhibit was Cattelan’s potpourri work hanging from the museum’s ceiling.

While a very interesting in itself, the exhibition’s catalogue was what brought everything into perspective. Cattelan’s work seems to be devoid of its power and poignant message (criticism or otherwise) when subtracted from the right context. Most of his pieces do not want to be moved, and need to remain in their original context, need to be shown where the surroundings add to the message, in order to be fully appreciated. Is that why they decided to hang it all together, as if keeping it away from the walls, from the museum’s frame? Who knows.

In any case, last week, through art, I learned of the power and importance of context.