Original link: https://onojyun.com/2022/11/04/7709/
△ 308｜Non-Artistic Self-Reconciliation
Some time ago, a friend from Taiwan chatted with me and said why Cai Kangyong is “a handful of years old”, and he can still use the way of literary youth to present a lot of content that makes people feel warm at first glance, which is really admirable ( not derogatory). Of course, according to the criterion of literati disparity, some literary youths are against the existence of Cai Kangyong, believing that their chicken soup literature has no “depth”. Regarding the light-hearted part of literati, you can move on to “Gaotai Education and Indecent Customs” to continue the discussion.
Art is the most twisted thing (no one), because it has no standards, no answers, no right or wrong that people always like to judge, but it gives people subjective “likes and dislikes”. This difference in thinking will bring about “right or wrong” in some scenarios.
Therefore, works that can be called the Holy Scriptures of life at the moment may be cast aside as “garbage” by others or even themselves in the next period. But art itself has not changed in any sense, just because it has been placed in a specific period and has been assigned a value, but can you accept that others deny or even slander the art you love? Anyone can pretend to be tolerant and think it’s okay, but almost no one can escape the magic of “negative conduction”. The things I like are denied, and even myself are denied.
People play around with art, and turn it into various labels and symbols that stick and mark each other to identify the same kind or exclude the different ones.
Of course, art itself can also turn people around.
For example, Duchamp’s “Fountain”, there are still people discussing its artistic connotation. So much so that people forget its original meaning – of course, I also think that this is the art itself, and making different “judgments” and perceptions of a work that can span different periods is itself one of the joys of art. We explain Duchamp’s “Fountain” in the simplest version: a Bedfordshire ceramic urinal purchased by Duchamp at the J. L. Mott Ironworks chain at 118 Fifth Avenue, New York, Name it “Fountain” and sign it “R. Mutt 1917” (R. Mutt, 1917). Duchamp submitted the work to the Society of Independent Artists as a provocation when it planned to hold its first art exhibition at the Central Tower in New York.
Marcel Duchamp • Engraving, 1917, 30.5×38.1 cm
Because the work itself uses “ready-made objects” without any artistic reprocessing, only Duchamp signed the name and date on the edge of the urinal – is he considered a work of art in a certain sense? The debate on this continues to this day, and even today, people debate whether Duchamp’s “Fountain” is an artistic satire or a subtle presentation of abstract art.
Oh yes, those who support the view that it is a work of art believe that although it is a “ready-made”, it was “chosen” by Duchamp. Of course, Duchamp also said later that he did not have a sense of “choice” for the shape, curvature, etc. of the urinal – anyway, people just grabbed it and chose this one-in-a-million, but where there is a urinal that can be seen, it is right .
The fun is that at a time when it is emphasized that there is no difference, no right or wrong, no standard in art, people are still arguing about a urinal for a long time, thinking it is a work of art or a deliberately “provocative” work. I think the real artistic value of this work is that the group of people started arguing about a urinal. Even now, there are still people copying this urinal whose industrial design is obviously outdated. From an artistic point of view, it is about a kind of humanistic innovation and boldness, but in real life, its industrial design at that time has been verified today. It is a defective product that will spill yellow urine without the right arc.
A few days ago, there were commercial activities in the plaza downstairs. They were using the “cloud maker” to make foam clouds that flowed up the wind, and they just happened to float one by one in front of the window. Is it art – of course it is, and its artistic value cannot be denied just because of the brand it serves or because it’s just used for propaganda. Although I used two not too “artistic” things to describe these wind-blown clouds – like “the sea anemone releasing sperm eggs”; or a kind of “anti-existence shit” that Gravity, its own color and texture, and of course the smell and disgusting emotions that shit should have.
Isn’t that enough art? Of course, to agree with such a rhetoric, it is like seeing Duchamp’s “Fountain”. Some people think that it is a urinal with a “spoof work” signed by the artist, and some people think that it contains everything in it that can correspond to everything. The mystery of it – it is not easy to say who is right and who is wrong, but if you deny the other party, you can prove that you are right, which is a way to get right and wrong.
Damn, it’s about to end and I haven’t talked about the title yet.
At the time we were talking about why Cai Kangyong’s chicken soup literature was called “vulgar”, because it was caught in a vicious circle of right and wrong, because no one could prove that the philosophy he revealed in those delicate sentences was right is wrong. So in turn, it proves that Cai Kangyong himself, or the audience who will be moved by his words of chicken soup, are “wrong”, which naturally proves that the content of these “literary self-conciliation” is also “wrong”.
Why bother to prove it “wrong”? In fact, we are also very puzzled, maybe we want to prove that something correct exists. So I dismantled the logic inside, according to the Chinese-style logic of “Proving A is wrong will naturally prove B is right”, since these one-sentence chicken soup, works of “literary and artistic self-reconciliation” that can really warm people’s hearts need to be reviewed If the proof is “wrong”, does that mean that those “non-literary self-conciliations” are right?
Therefore, we intend to create a “non-literary self-reconciliation” column, in an attempt to find a way to self-salvage people who do not admit their faults but need to be recognized as faulty. The more worried people are or the more mindful but vague they are, the more clearly it should be on the table at the outset. For example, people believe that “the sister-in-law is the half-assistance of the brother-in-law” , the brother-in-law and the sister will sign a contract when they get married. In the case of the accidental death of the sister, the sister-in-law is required to be the sister’s substitute to marry the brother-in-law / or the contract does not allow this things happened, so this is the explanation.
At this time, people will shout again: What do you mean, have we said that “the sister-in-law is the half-pucker of the brother-in-law”? Have you respected the parties’ right to choose?
Me: What if my sister runs away and my brother-in-law’s family is rich, and in order to keep my husband-in-law and aggrieved my younger sister? Or is my sister willing too?
People: Fuck you, you have the dirtiest mind.
Me: Not necessarily, you are not the party, why should you make decisions for her?
【I know some things even if you don’t say them~ONO】*
Cai Kangyong’s recent chicken soup is signed with “I have been keeping some words for you~ Kangyong”
This article is reproduced from: https://onojyun.com/2022/11/04/7709/
This site is for inclusion only, and the copyright belongs to the original author.