| = good | Veronica Văleanu [17.Jul.11 15:49] |
| Welcome to our community, Justin! I salute your manifesto, the boldness and the seriousness assumed in encapsulating your vision concerning what art should stand for an artist and an art-receptor. There are many threads here worthy of analysis and discussion, for the concepts they bring about. in terms of formulating it, I can notice that the voice behind the manifesto has sometimes extremely sharp, ferm positions (e.g.in that sentence "Let it be known...") and sometimes too mellow/mild terms for the precision a reader should expect (we are all fortresses) whereas i couldn't help noticing some cliches (Life is to be taken in small doses). I mean, from the point of view of formulating the general perspectives, there are parts that could be made more precise or needing a stricter art/artist-concerned attitudes. but the message is captivating, quite dense and it definitely makes the reader want to find out more. being a reader, I would be so curious to find out: - what is your position to postmodernism, in terms of weaknesses, and why not, possible exits from it? perhaps this is the reason why you want to promote this manifesto) anyway, I see real value in your resources and capacities. looking forward to your answer and to a larger series of texts, VV | |
| = Thanks | Justin Fenech [17.Jul.11 16:11] |
| Hi Veronica Thank you very much for your comment and welcome. With regards to more concise details as to the workings of this style, I will be posting, bit by bit, more manifestoes and more literature utilizing this style, so hopefully it will become ever more clearer. Cliches for me are a souvenir, and I will elaborate on my beliefs in souvenir in my next manifesto :) My position on postmodernism is one of indifference. The term 'modernism' relates to the first modern movements in art, from the Impressionists to the Surrealists. This is a period I very much adore, and am heavily influenced by. Yet, like all good things, it came to an end quickly. But what followed after with postmodernism is basically rebellion for rebellion's sake. The artist became too vain, too full of himself, too occupied. He has lost touch with the ultimate art, that of living well. This is an art form whose heart and soul is filled with the spirit of primitivism and innocence. Our minds need to be freed from bourgois trappings and be allowed to think freely as we did in neolithic times and in our childhood. Like this the imagination will know no bounds. | |
| = why | Veronica Văleanu [18.Jul.11 09:17] |
| if your principles are well-coordinated, they should pertain to only one manifesto, not to multiple ones, because a manifesto is a creed. what exactly does the fundamental concept of your work, [imagination] rely on? you haven't quite clarified. for instance, my personal point of view is that imagination is only the most general label for what all the activities of our mind could cause and trigger: it's not only creative for the purpose of being creative. there are countless functions of the mind- interpreting, decoding, provinding feedback, anticipating - creating patterns of thinking. in the process, the consciousness is a powerful engine, not to mention the subconscious. the fortress-perspective, from inside, and the mask-perspective, from the exterior, working at the same time separately and in common. sometimes the reality you seem to discard is formed by a flux of mind-exchanges between individuals and their mind clashes. from the vague references you gave about the process of creation, the reader might be intrigued. well, everything we do is about creating, destroying and recreating with our desires, needs, will, etc. so nobody really does smth in this purpose: the grass doesn't force itself to grow. back to the question: after all these aspects, why should we conceive imagination a movement in itself? looking forward to your answer, VV | |
| = err | Veronica Văleanu [18.Jul.11 09:21] |
| providing, not pronviding movement in itself in art | |