
The photography here is most definitely art. Even without the kayaker, this would make a great photo. The contrast of the natural power with the serene beauty that surrounds it is intriguing. The kayaker makes the shot even better. But why? Why does the viewer want to see someone put their life and limbs at risk? Do we want to associate with his emotions? Isn’t that what art is all about – emotion? Does the kayaker create his own personal art found in the emotions he creates by his own actions?
He isn’t making art in the traditional sense, but this obviously gives him a feeling not found in day-to-day activities. This feeling pleasures him so much that he will put his survival at risk to obtain it. What feeling drives this madman? Is this a way for him to release the Other? To an outsider this idea seems absurd. There is nothing remotely logical in strapping oneself into a little plastic boat and launching face first off of a waterfall. But this guy must provide himself some reason, at least enough reason to fall off of waterfalls on a regular basis. Is this a way for him to release the Other? Is this man’s Id, his inner drive, compelling him to unnaturally expose himself to danger?
Is art what makes us human? Or is it that we possess the Other (or does it possess us)? Animals do not create art. Perhaps they don’t need to. An animal may not have the Other; perhaps they are one and the same. Is this what separates man from beasts? Is this necessarily a good thing? I’m beginning to feel that art is a creation of the Other. Art is the Other. Artists= Others, hence some seem a little weird to society, they may be alienated. So to make one’s life a work of art is to make one’s life a work of the Other.
Again, is this a good idea? We’ve seen so far that we can get an insight to the Other through anonymity and art. What do we find when we look into this? We find The Ticket, YouTube, we find people kayaking off of waterfalls. We also find beauty, creation, music, compassion, and religion. Do the positive creations outweigh the filth? Is the good better than the bad? Hard to say. Is anyone really ready to let themselves loose? No. So, we control. We compose rules for ourselves, we create a “please and thank you” society of ants where everyone is subjected to the judgment of society. The “normal” obedient ones pass the test and fit into society like a jigsaw puzzle. The deviants, the Others, the “artists” are outcasts, 3D pieces in the two dimensional societal puzzle.
This connects to the first section of The Filth, where the obedient yet unhappy flat puzzle piece Greg is slapped into the third dimension as Officer Slade. This new world he is in seems vulgar, disorganized, and perhaps even artistic. Does Greg (as Slade) venture into the land of the Other? It seems this land is somewhat of a shitshow. Lots going on, slight chaos and confusion. If this world is “the land of the Other”, with spider brain robots and Nazi mechanical dolphins, I don’t think I’m ready for it. I think I’ll choose as Greg did, and stick to my puzzle piece conformity for now. I wouldn’t want my seat here to get cold.
You raise a good point here about what one is not ready to experience. But if you are not ready to experience it, can you fault others for doing so?
ReplyDelete