∬ Naka Futatu (なか ふたつ) ∬
I want to do what is written here as an anonymous person.
It doesn't make sense for famous people to do it.
The age of genius is over a hundred years ago.
If you are interested, please read on.
* In the following, "art" is not always "Visual art".
The term "art" is used to mean "music" and "literature" as well as the premise that anything that can be expressed by a human being is worthy of art.
I mainly produce oil paintings as two-dimensional works.
In addition, the relationship between a two-dimensional work and its peripheral elements, such as "frame" and "title", which has been neglected so far, "things around the picture" We aim to generate "multiplexing of expression" between the work and the main body by reviewing and creating meaning there.
By using this "multiplexing of expressions", "Is serious art still alive? ] I think.In addition, by re-discovering the meaning of "things around paintings", I think that we can expand the area of painting expression, which is currently at a standstill.
Maybe this "multiplexing of expressions" is the only way left to expand that "area"?
And in the process of spreading such "creative attitude" to "appreciator" and "critic", "social restraint" tightening human beings will be released even to a small extent.
If so, it could be thought of as a "revolution by art."I have such expectations personally.
* This picture is not a “self-portrait”, but if Jesus Christ is alive in the present world, if so, what kind of person is it?
It is a picture drawn with the idea of modern icon.
There is no model because he is an imaginary person.
Although I am not a Christian, I drew it with the image of “modern icons”.
In the process of drawing this picture, I thought that the "Modern Young Christ" would surely live with sadness.
* This is not about using "art" politically and socially.
Rather, it is a story that [If "art" ignores society now, "art" will perish.]
And it is a story that [For a soul attracted to something, the meaning of politics and economy will be infinitely small.]
* Here, “terrorism and the revolution” are regarded as “symbols of rebellion” to the direction of “neglected humanity and material emphasis” that is fundamental in the current society.
Therefore, I consider "violent terrorism" to be completely different.
日本語・英語の切り替えは、左のボタンをクリックしてください。その他の言語で読みたい方は、Google翻訳をお使いください。
§ 【World / simultaneous / frequent art = terrorism without victims】 §
Art has the potential to be the only "victim free terrorism" that can exist in the world.
In this sense, I support activities such as Banksy and Malena Abramovich.
However, they are famous artists, and they can do what they can if they are famous.
But then many anonymous people can support them but cannot participate.
There is nothing other than "people's participation" that pushes "terrorism" into a "revolution".
Now, all the anonymous people have the need and the right to participate in it as the "terrorist of art".
※ "Society" has the property of ignoring the will of the people and abusing and playing with individuals absurdly.
The religion and liberation of such a "current society that has become a system that continues to produce disadvantages and dissatisfactions for the majority of individuals" without causing casualties is described here in the broad sense of terrorism. I think.
I aim at the "non-violent terrorism" of "art that anyone can participate in" in the most common and helpless position given to me "one anonymous person".
Yes, we are aiming not for “terrorism involving people as victims” but for “terrorism that releases humans from social stress” through “people participation”.
In other words, this is "terrorism to destroy terrorism."
In order to do so, it is necessary to be “terrorism with all participants”.
With the participation of the vast majority of anonymous persons, it is possible to overwhelm and purify the intense power such as anger, resentment, and hatred contained in violent and destructive terrorism, I think we can do it ...
I don't think it's impossible.
That's why I myself want to participate as a "one completely anonymous person".
Isn't this the only thing that can be done with "art"?
Isn't it only art that can increase the number of personalities as the number of people participating in it increases?
_JPG.jpg)
_JPG.jpg)
日本語・英語の切り替えは、左のボタンをクリックしてください。その他の言語で読みたい方は、Google翻訳をお使いください。
Blaming "terrorism" is easy.
Criticizing "terrorism", which is unjust, unlawful, and unreasonably violent, will surely pass that criticism as justification.
However, at current when "suicide bombers" occur frequently, those who are conducting "terrorism" are certainly protesting at the expense of their lives, but among those who are blaming "terrorism" , is there the person who try to prevent "terrorism" at the expense of his own life?
Originally, "terrorism" occurs as a protest against unjust violent domination, so
violence and destruction is not the essential meaning of "terrorism"
No, I think the essential meaning of "terrorism" is the opposite, it lies in the "anti-violence" of "silent protest".
At present, the role of "silent protest" = "terrorism without victims" about to be born in art.
Now, isn't the time for art to give to society something?
[Art must not say such a exaggerated thing! ]
May be said so.
But isn't that word rather such an "exaggerated thing"?
Until now, the field of art has been forgiven about everything for almost 100 years.
I think it's not such an ”exaggerated thing” that art that has continued to receive "benefits" from society, tries to return those "benefits" a little.
"It's time for art to give back to the world"
Do you think that is a bad thing?
Looking back, in the "20th century", art definitely had a meaning as a kind of terrorism (rebellion, destruction, and threat to established concepts).
However, it was tossed by the waves of the era of the "twentieth century of art", and when the swirling waves calmed down, they reached an unexpected place.
I think that's how the art of today's, "interesting(funny) art" and "fashionable art" should be.
I do not deny "modern art".
But I think that's not enough.
Terrorism don't go away, and humanity can't be revived, by "interesting(funny) art" or "fashionable art" .
Only "serious art" can surpasses the "anger", "resentment" and "hate" of terrorism, and it can be "terrorism that destroys terrorism".
And unless terrorism is open to all people at the same time and simultaneously around the world, "terrorism without victims" will not bear fruit.
I think that "non-violent terrorism with all participation" is the only "victim-free terrorism" that can overwhelm "violent terrorism".
* One of the representative artists of contemporary art [Damian Hirst] said when he saw the image of `` 9.11 simultaneous terrorist attacks in the United States, he said, "It was like watching modern art" is.
Was his word a coincidence?
No, it means that "contemporary art" has created a "model of terrorism" and it must be that "terrorism" has overwhelmed "art".
Do you want to keep doing that?
There is only one answer.
"NO!"
§【Declaration The Loss of The 20th Century of Art】§
Since publishing the blog 【Declaration The Loss of The 20th Century of Art】 in March 2014, I have lost the age of [The 20th Century of Art] and stand in a new field, and I continue to produce art intent to expand the region of art.
* It seems that this 【Declaration The Loss of The 20th Century of Art】 tends to be regarded as “return to classics”, but this is the opposite direction.
In other words, it seems to me that "art today" has not been fundamentally updated for 100 years.
This is the challenge that humans, who had been at the mercy of the times, are trying to resist it for the first time.
I think that it is the first page toward the emergence of “new human being creation”.
If you say "What is exaggerated," I think that's true, and I can accept that reproach.
However, I hope that you can understand only that I am doing it with the meaning of "challenge".
For those who don't have any doubts about the epoch of [The 20th Century of Art], I think it's almost meaningless.
However, if you have any doubts, even if only a few, then I think it means "something".
『Do you still want to make art a thing only for "geniuses"? 』
『Do you think art can look down on the ordinary people from a high point? 』
『In the first place, can the watcher be called the ordinary people ? 』
『Can such "admirable fine art "continue to be" beautiful thing" in the future? 』
『Isn't everyone already tired of the conceptual art that actually esoteric and but pretending to be casual?
Hasn't it deceive of the general public?』
”Don't try to understand it! Feel it!”
『Do you want to keep saying this more?』
『Even after considering all of the above, is [abstract expression] still necessary? 』
『Or do you go back to [concrete expression]? 』
『No, has "abstract expression" not started yet? 』
『Nevertheless, don't you had been decided that "abstract" is such a thing "Abstract like abstract"? 』
『Will we still have to call [abstract] about [abstract like abstract], [ concrete] about [non-abstract], and [realism] about [real concrete] ? 』
_JPG.jpg)
_convert_20190428194143%20(1)_.jpg)
_convert_20190428193524%20(1)_.jpg)
_JPG.jpg)
.jpg)
* The above eight paintings are small paintings with a piece of canvas stuck on a plywood.
Originally, it was drawn as a study, but since then, the concept of “Encyclopedia of Encyclopedias” has emerged, so I intend to put it there.
日本語・英語の切り替えは、左のボタンをクリックしてください。その他の言語で読みたい方は、Google翻訳をお使いください。
If you've ever felt these questions, try losing [The 20th Century of Art].
I believe that something will be "clear", something will be "fresh" and something will be "comfortable".