[Art in No Fame] = [Anonymity of Art]
◇ ◇ ◇
If everyone be "One and Only"
"Famous Artists" will be gone
And
Everyone stand on the same height
§ [Anonymous Declaration]
◇ ◇
"Anonymous" is a "Universal Person"
"Man in Fame" has "No Universality"
§【Anonymous Declaration(Revised edition)】§
《From 2024, I will be working as an artist under the name N. 》
◇Explanation◇
N is a general name for anonymous people who have been set as names that can be used freely by anyone involved in the arts.
Anyone who wants to act as an anonymous person can call himself N.
Therefore, there is no name value associated with works or activities published under the name N.
Of course, there is no "authority" or "privilege" to arise.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
*The text above is the revised version from 2024, and the text below is before the revision.
The sentence below will continue to be effective, but as you can see from the explanation above, I think that what is written below will hardly be necessary in the future.
～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～～
§【Original-Anonymous Declaration】§
《I declare, if the name of "Naka Futatsu" becomes “famous” in the mass scale, I will discard this name and resume the activity from “zero” with a new name.
Also, in my artistic activities, I will do my best to avoid disseminating information that can identify me personally, such as my real name or face photo, to the mass media.
Furthermore, if I believe that my real name has spread on major scale, I promise to end my own "artist" activity. 》
* "Famous here" means something that has been recognized by the general public on a mass scale.
Recognition with a limited scope that has no social influence is excluded from "famous".
The aim is not necessarily "to be unnamed", but "to do not have big power".
And finally, I aim to eliminate the concept of [Famous Artist] itself.
I consider "anonymity" to be "the only condition as [Man in Art]".
In other words, if there is person who is not entitled to be [Man in Art], it is "Famous people" only.
Why isn't "famous people" granted "qualification to become [Man in Art]"?
Because being famous is the most inescapable authority in the current art world.
I think the [Man in Art] needs to refuse to have "authority".
At present, in the "world of art", as in other fields, "famousness" has "authority".
And, of course, it is directly connected to "big power."
Because artists with authority have big power, the "world of art" is closed and cannot be said to be truly liberated world.
That's because there is a "disparity" in there.
In any case, freedom is not created where there is disparity.
At present, those who want to get involved in "art" in a expertise sense are forced to aim for "becoming famous".
If a person who is not blessed with the original property chooses to be "unnamed", he will surely be shaken off the "world of art".
So there is no way but to aim for "being famous".
(Although those who originally owned the property were already given power at that time)
Anyone who achieves that goal and easily becomes a "famous" will easily gain also "authority" too.
In such a situation, can the person who has acquired the "authority" stay without having the "big power"?
I think it is impossible, so I think that "famous person" should not be given a qualification to be [Man in Art].
Therefore, at this time, there cannot be a true [Man in Art] inside the "world of art."
In other words, on the current situation, all true [Man in Art] are "outside of the world of art".(At least "people who are in the center of the current art" are excluded from true [Man in Art].)
And in the future, what I can think of as 【Man in Art】 will be "anonymous people" about 7 billion people.
* [Man in Art] is a term I am using instead of the word “artist”.
[Man in Art] is a term that includes "creators," "viewers," and "critics," and is used to perceive to these three positions as an equal relationship.
Almost everyone can be 【Man in Art】 is the premise that be recognized about "art" as freely and widely as possible.
In other words, if all the expressions are within the scope of "art" and if all the people who are on the "creating side" and "the appreciating side" are included in it, almost no person that isn't included in it.
Therefore, it does not mean "uniform art", but rather the opposite of "art rooted in the individuality of all people".
§ “Breaking Mass & Saving One”
◇ ◇
No more high quality personality or talent
(It is a [symbol of being "many"])
What we need now is "ordinary personality"
(It is a [Symbol of being One])
At present, when the word "individuality" or "talent" is used, that word has meaning of hierarchical relationship, such as "excellent personality" or "first-class talent".
And no one will be deny that.
That means, in the current situation, "individuality" = "excellent personality", and "talent" = "".
However, the "individuality" of human beings is just "personality", and whatever it is, if it is "personal", there should be no problem it is called "individuality".
Also, assuming that "art" is a "free field", that personality as long as is personality, it must be "highest talent".
If so, also "ordinary personality" and "bad talent" should be placed at the same height to"excellent personality" and "first-class talent".
And there should be no vertical difference between those "personalities and talents that seem to be inferior at first glance" and "superior personalities and talents that everyone recognizes".
At least, in the original sense, "individuality" and "talent" are words for expressing "difference in side-by-side arrangement", and are not words for "vertical difference".
But at present, as mentioned earlier, "individuality" always means "excellent personality," and "talent" always means only "first-class talent."
Perhaps many people think that otherwise the meaning of the words "individuality" and "talent" would not hold.
In the past, I think that "reaching a peak everyone acknowledges" has been pursued in "art".
However, it can be said that what is pursued in "art after the 20th century" is "self-expression".
That is means that everyone can have "one each vertex".
Of course, it is still free to think of "I want to pursue a peak everyone acknowledges", but when I look at it in "the whole art", also it would be "one self-expression".
I think that the meaning is completely different from the time when all people were pursuing the same vertex.
In such an era, is there a "difference between up and down" in "individuality" and "talent" yet?
Is it still meaningful to make such a difference?
I can't find any meaning there.
At present, if there is something that can be called "individuality" and "talent," I think that it is "individuality and talent given to everyone, in the same amount and with different qualities".
In other words, there is no "up and down difference" in "individuality" and "talent", but only "side-by-side difference".
If this were to be recognized by many people, everyone would be "one and only" and famous person in "world of art" will be gone.
Even if there are still people who are called "famous artist" in the "world of art", their "famousness" will no longer be as important as it is now.