Lover, Lunatic or a Languishing Venereal Patient
Nikhil Biswas We credit the bravado of expressing our popping thoughts in immediate language smelling of fresh nascence. But in reality it is proven that the bravado is hollow, and worshiping that cleverness is devoid of the support of our soul. I have my doubts about something there. What about this affair of mutating thoughts into language of freshness? Would this be limited to the use of words pertaining to sex? Does nascent word mean the phallus or the vagina only? Admitted we have a false prejudice against this pair of words, it would still be refuted that novel nuance often wheels around these two subjects only. Sexuality is a strong and significant causality abounding our lives. Enough stress is given upon this subject, and it is justified. At least by the current standards of affairs. But the form of sexual exposure is reflected in life in many ways. Out of the same man becomes either a lover, a lunatic or a languishing venereal patient—this may entail sufficient scope for pondering, and actually there is so. There is no hypocrisy in realizing that scope. But it would be most lamentable if we exclusively consider words like vagina or sodomy as smart words and discard the rest as insipid. That would mean compromising with conscience. I would like to emancipate the repressed emotions, their transcendence, through newborn language or coinage. We shun with care our repressed reflections and continue to do so till now. That is a sign of unhealthiness. There must be an explosion within this unwholesome environment; but that by no means imply that I must use words like ‘the clitoris’ to ensure a ready-made flow of refreshing write-ups from the tip of my pen. I used the word ‘clitoris’ because some such words belonging to the same category have impacted my tympanum. They are just kicking up dust in a frenzied campaign to highlight my stance on sexuality. As if I have spelt out words of strength without the backing of truth. We should accept and practice what comes naturally to us. Otherwise the whole show would seem to be falsely made-up. If a brazen bunch of aphrodisiac words could solve the issue easily, there would have been nothing else to be done at all. I have no abhorrence or allergy for such words—but their usage call for right perspective, the right place and the right time. It contracts my soul to think of my repertoire full of only such words. The phallus and the vagina—these two are there; they will stay. The phallus stands for man. If the phallic symbol of the male is over-handled at the cost of his other attributes, there would be a phallic dominance—but we shall miss the stimulated upsurge of male vitality which unthrottles his entire torso like an epicentre of tremendous liveliness. I have a similar statement for vagina and the female form. The expression of art is not compartmental but holistic. Yet there is something more to be said regarding this topic. If the monumental totality of the whole can be glimpsed in some partial experience or expression, then such revelation is adorable. Puritanism in art and literature must be kicked out ruthlessly. That maniac mind of the middle class suffers much repression. To release that repression through powerful expressions would bring about the intricacies of the subconscious soul. A partial depiction of it might also become truthful. But the very thought that the whole thing has to have force, that too a bullying imposition, is unacceptable. Artists have progressed much regarding this matter through their paintings and these have remarkable integrity—that is to say, clarity of thought. But it is always depressing to think about the concept of coining particular words just for the sake of employing them. The words rape or orgasm or ye garrulousness of the coitus, all are acceptable words, but not for just using them. These may be used to express the signals from the soul. The words shall no longer be words then; they would convey passionate faith, furious rancour or vehement mistrust. That must not remain within the part and should spill over into totality—that is the earnest desire. I do wish to involve the whole body and mind. It is not possible to live with the phallus and the vagina only. There I believe that the phallus and the vagina are not at all individual entities. The vagina enshrine the total trust, the whelming hatred, the entire agony and the complete consciousness of woman. The vagina of the female is not only a unit but is inseparable from her whole and thus sprites forth in truth. If it was a lone unit only, it would have been limited to the pages of anatomy and physiology The truth of such places is not the truth of the whole soul. The vagina is true as a part of the female torso. Not as a separate entity; its affairs are as dynamic and drifting as of touch, smell and sound. Its conduct is made up of hate, love, jealousy and provocation. Envy, union, all are expressed, but that Is not the expression of its own. That expression transcends into the realm of truth due to its connection with the soul. The woman’s vagina is anxious, fiery, stable and conflictive. The dejection, anxiety, agony and ecstasy of the consciousness active in every single cell of her entire body is evident in the vagina. But sans that consciousness and the maze of veins that convey it, the vagina of woman is not meaningful. And the phallus of man is the male power manifest—sometimes melancholy, sometimes keen, enraged, restless, and sometimes else enthused at invited elation. But it is true only within the display of vitality to which it is related at root. It is not established as partial segment. The acute phallus is integrally linked with man’s potent power of will, his vigor of being, running fast inside his arteries as sanguine stream and throbbing inside his flesh
Beginnings, Beginnings, Beginnings: A Letter
A letter from Hans Ulrich Obrist to Hou Hanru Dear Hanru, Thanks so much for your message and many congratulations on your Lyon Biennale. This is an occasion to think about the Internet and John Brockman’s annual Edge question, which this year asks, “How has the Internet changed the way you think?” Some thoughts about this in order to resume our exchange, which I have tried to summarize in an incomplete A to Z PARS PRO TOTO ever PARS PRO TOTO. C is for Curating the World The Internet made me think towards a more expanded notion of curating. Stemming from the Latin word “curare,” the word “curating” originally meant “to take care of objects in museums.” Curation has long since evolved. Just as art is no longer limited to traditional genres, curating is no longer confined to the gallery or museum, but has expanded across all boundaries. The rather obscure and very specialized notion of curating has become much more publicly used since one now talks about the curating of websites and this marks a very good moment to rediscover the pioneering history of art curating as a toolbox for 21st-century society at large. D is for Delinking In the years before being online, I remember that there were many interruptions by phone and fax day and night. The reality of being permanently linked to the Internet triggered my increasing awareness of the importance of moments of concentration – moments without interruption that require me to be completely unreachable. I no longer answer the phone at home and I only answer my mobile phone in the case of fixed telephone appointments. “To link is beautiful. To delink is sublime.” (Paul Chan) D is for Disrupted narrative continuity Forms of film montage, as the disruption of narrative and the disruption of spatial and temporal continuity, have been a staple tactic of the avant-garde from Cubism and Eisenstein, through Brecht to Kluge or Godard. For avant-gardism as a whole, it was essential that these tactics were recognized (experienced) as a disruption. The Internet has made disruption and montage the operative bases of everyday experience. Today, these forms of disruption can be harnessed and poeticized. They can foster new connections, new relationships, new productions of reality: reality as life-montage / life as reality-disruption? Not one story but many stories……… D is for Doubt A certain unreliability of technical and material information on the Internet brings us to the notion of doubt. I feel that doubt has become more pervasive. The artist Carsten Höller has invented the Laboratory of Doubt, which is opposed to mere representation. As he told me, “Doubt and perplexity … are unsightly states of mind we’d rather keep under lock and key because we associate them with uneasiness, with a failure of values.” Höller’s credo is not to do, not to intervene. To exist is to do and not to do is a way of doing. “Doubt is alive; it paralyzes certainty.” (Carsten Höller) E is for Evolutive exhibitions The Internet makes me think more about non-final exhibitions and exhibitions in a state of becoming. When conceiving exhibitions, I sometimes like to think of randomized algorithms, access, transmission, mutation, infiltration, circulation (and the list goes on). The Internet makes me think less of exhibitions as top-down masterplans, but rather as bottom-up processes of self-organization like “do it” or “Cities on the Move”. F is for Forgetting The ever-growing, ever-pervasive records that the Internet produces make me think sometimes about the virtues of forgetting. Is a limited-life space of certain information and data becoming more urgent? H is for Handwriting (and Drawing ever Drawing) The Internet has made me aware of the importance of handwriting and drawing. Personally, I typed all my early texts, but the more the Internet has become all-encompassing, the more I have felt that something went missing. Hence the idea to reintroduce handwriting. I do more and more of my correspondence as handwritten letters scanned and sent by email. On a professional note, I observe, as a curator, the importance of drawing in current art production. One can also see it in art schools: a moment when drawing is an incredibly fertile zone. I is for Identity “Identity is shifty, identity is a choice.” (Etel Adnan) M is for Maps The Internet has increased the presence of maps in my thinking. It’s become easier to make maps, to change them, and also to work on them collaboratively and collectively and share them (eg, Google Maps and Google Earth). After the focus on social networks of the last couple of years, I have come to see the focus on location as a key dimension. N is for New geographies The Internet has fuelled (and been fuelled by) a relentless economic and cultural globalization, with all its positive and negative aspects. On the one hand, there is the danger of homogenizing forces, which is also at stake in the world of the arts. On the other hand, there are unprecedented possibilities for difference-enhancing global dialogues. In the long duration there have been seismic shifts, like that in the 16th century when the paradigm shifted from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. We are living through a period in which the center of gravity is transferring to new centers. The early 21st century is seeing the growth of a polyphony of art centers in the East and West, in the North and South. N is for Non-mediated experiences. N is for the New Live I feel an increased desire for non-mediated experiences. Depending on one’s point of view, the virtual may be a new and liberating prosthesis of the body or it may threaten the body. Many visual artists today negotiate and mediate between these two, staging encounters of non-mediated intersubjectivity. In the field of music, the crisis of the record industry goes hand in hand with an increased importance of live concerts. P is for Parallel realities The Internet creates and fosters new constituencies, new micro-communities. As a system that