Archive for December, 2008

Laibach: Across the Universe
Let it be, 1988

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments No Comments »

had today a multilmedial vernissage that one could see, hear & wear.
the photos from the exibition are coming soon.

Plakat elektrika

Plakat elektrika Previous Next Close
Posing: Grahal; Photo: Pezza Pan; Poster: Jovana

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 1 Comment »

Citizen Joseph Ratzinger, current elected CEO of the Catholic Church (“The Pope”), expressed his views on homosexuality again. Few days ago, addressing the Vatican’s governing body (“The Curia”), he has declared that saving the world from homosexual behaviour is as important as saving the rainforest:

On ‘human ecology’
“We need something like human ecology, meant in the right way. The Church speaks of human nature as ‘man’ or ‘woman’ and asks that this order is respected.
This is not out-of-date metaphysics. It comes from the faith in the Creator and from listening to the language of creation, despising which would mean self-destruction for humans and therefore a destruction of the work itself of God.”

On ‘gender’
“What is often expressed and signified with the word ‘gender’ leads to the human auto-emancipation from creation and from the Creator. The human being wants to make himself on his own and to decide always and exclusively by himself about what concerns him.
But, in so doing, the human being lives against the truth and against the Spirit creator. Rain forests deserve, yes, our protection but the human being – as a creature which contains a message that is not in contradiction with his freedom but is the condition of his freedom – does not deserve it less.”

Not stating by which means should the human being be ‘protected’ from all love and intimate behaviour not approved by Catholic doctrine, and how should this ‘human ecology’ be reinforced, citizen Ratzinger left me with many questions and doubts, and fears. Abusing the influential post he is currently occupying, 85-year old Joseph Ratzinger sends around the world a message which contains resemblancies to the basic concepts of ideologies responsible for immense suffering of mankind in the past. Similar views on ‘human nature’ and the necessity to ‘protect’ humans from their freedom have been most brutally enforced during the horror years of Nazism, which originated in the same country where Mr. Ratzinger was born.

Freedom of speech

Freedom of speech Previous Next Close

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 4 Comments »

Laibach: Life is life
Opus Dei, 1987

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments No Comments »

O nacionalizmu

Nacionalizam je, pre svega, paranoja. Kolektivna i pojedinačna paranoja. Kao kolektivna paranoja, ona je posledica zavisti i straha, a iznad svega posledica gubljenja individualne svesti; te prema tome, kolektivna paranoja i nije niÅ¡ta drugo od zbir individualnih paranoja doveden do paroksizma. Ako pojedinac, u okviru druÅ¡tvenog projekta, nije u stanju da se “izrazi”, ili zato Å¡to mu taj druÅ¡tveni projekt ne ide na ruku, ne stimuliÅ¡e ga kao individuu, ili ga sprečava kao individuu, Å¡to će reći ne daje mu da doÄ‘e do svog entiteta, on je primoran da svoj entitet traži izvan identiteta i izvan tzv. druÅ¡tvene strukture. Tako on postaje pripadnik jedne slobodnozidarske skupine koja postavlja sebi, bar na izgled, za zadatak i cilj probleme epohalne važnosti: opstanak i prestiž nacije, ili nacija, očuvanje tradicije i nacionalnih svetinja, folklornih, filozofskih, etičkih, književnih itd. Sa teretom takve, tajne, polujavne ili javne misije, N. N. postaje čovek akcije, narodni tribun, privid individuuma. Kad smo ga već sveli na tu meru, na njegovu pravu meru, poÅ¡to smo ga izdvojili iz krda, i skinuli ga sa slobodnozidarske lože, u koju se on sam smestio, ili gde su ga drugi smestili, imamo pred sobom individuum bez individualnosti, nacionalistu, roÄ‘aka Žila. To je onaj Sartrov Žil, koji je porodična i druÅ¡tvena nula, čija je jedina osobina da ume da prebledi na pomenu jedne jedine teme: Engleza. To bledilo, to drhtanje, ta njegova “tajna” da ume da prebledi na pomen Engleza, to je jedino njegovo druÅ¡tveno biće i to ga čini značajnim, postojećim: nemojte pred njim pominjati engleski čaj, jer će vam svi za stolom početi namigivati, davaće vam znake rukama i nogama, jer Žil je osetljiv na Engleze, zaboga, pa to svi znaju, Žil mrzi Engleze (a voli svoje, Francuze), jednom rečju, Žil je ličnost, on postaje ličnost zahvaljujući engleskom čaju. Ovaj i ovakav portret, primenljiv na sve nacionaliste, može se slobodno, a po ovoj shemi, razviti do kraja: nacionalista je, po pravilu, kao druÅ¡tveno biće, i kao pojedinac, podjednako niÅ¡tavan. Izvan ovog opredeljenja, on je nula. On je zapostavio porodicu, posao (uglavnom činovnički), literaturu (ako je pisac), druÅ¡tvene funkcije, jer su one suviÅ¡e sitne u odnosu na njegov mesijanizam. Treba li reći da je on, po opredeljenju, asketa, potencijalni borac, koji čeka svoj čas. Nacionalizam je, da parafraziram Sartrov stav o antisemitizmu, potpun i slobodan izbor, globalan stav koji čovek prihvata ne samo prema drugim nacijama, nego i prema čoveku uopÅ¡te, prema istoriji i druÅ¡tvu, to je istovremeno strast i koncepcija sveta. Nacionalista je, po definiciji, ignorant. Nacionalizam je, dakle, linija manjeg otpora, komocija. Nacionalisti je lako, on zna, ili misli da zna, svoje vrednosti, svoje, Å¡to će reći nacionalne, Å¡to će reći vrednosti nacije kojoj pripada, etičke i političke, a za ostale se ne interesuje, ne interesuju ga, pakao to su drugi (druge nacije, drugo pleme). Njih ne treba ni proveravati. Nacionalista u drugima vidi isključivo sebe – nacionaliste. Pozicija, rekosmo li, komotna. Strah i zavist. Opredeljenje, angažovanje, koje ne iziskuje truda. Ne samo pakao to su drugi, u okviru nacionalnog ključa naravno, nego i: sve Å¡to nije moje (srpsko, hrvatsko, francusko…) to mi je strano. Nacionalizam je ideologija banalnosti. Nacionalizam je, uz to, ne samo po etimoloÅ¡kom značenju, joÅ¡ poslednja ideologija i demagogija koja se obraća narodu. Pisci to najbolje znaju. Stoga je pod sumnjom nacionalizma svaki pisac koji deklarativno izjavljuje da piÅ¡e “iz naroda i za narod”, koji svoj individualni glas, tobože potčinjava viÅ¡im nacionalnim interesima. Nacionalizam je kič: u srpskohrvatskoj varijanti, borba za prevlast oko nacionalnog porekla LICITARSKOG SRCA. Nacionalista, u principu, ne zna ni jedan jezik, niti tzv. varijante, ne poznaje druge kulture (ne tiču ga se). Ali stvar nije tako prosta. Ako zna neki jezik, Å¡to će reći da kao intelektualac ima uvid u kulturno nasleÄ‘e neke druge nacije, velike ili male, to mu znanje služi samo tome da uspostavlja analogije, na Å¡tetu onih drugih, naravno. Kič i folklor, folklorni kič, ako vam se tako viÅ¡e sviÄ‘a, nisu niÅ¡ta drugo do kamuflirani nacionalizam, plodno polje nacionalističke ideologije. Zamah folklorizma, kod nas i u svetu, nije antropoloÅ¡ke prirode, nego nacionalističke. Insistiranje na famoznom couleur locale takoÄ‘e je, ako je izvan umetničkog konteksta (Å¡to će reći ako nije u službi umetničke istine), jedan od vidova nacionalizma, prikrivenog. Nacionalizam je, dakle, prevashodno negativitet, nacionalizam je negativna kategorija duha, jer nacionalizam živi na poricanju i od poricanja. Mi nismo ono Å¡to su oni. Mi smo pozitivan pol, oni negativan. NaÅ¡e vrednosti, nacionalne, nacionalističke, imaju funkciju tek u odnosu na nacionalizam onih drugih: mi jesmo nacionalisti, ali oni su to joÅ¡ i viÅ¡e; mi koljemo (kad se mora), ali oni joÅ¡ i viÅ¡e; mi smo pijanci, oni alkoholičari; naÅ¡a istorija je ispravna samo u odnosu na njihovu, naÅ¡ je jezik čist samo u odnosu na njihov. Nacionalizam živi od relativizma. Ne postoje opÅ¡te vrednosti, estetičke, etičke itd. Postoje samo relativne. I u tom smislu, u prvom redu, nacionalizam jeste nazadnjaÅ¡tvo. Treba biti bolji samo od svoga brata ili polubrata, ostalo me se i ne tiče. To je ono Å¡to smo nazvali strah. Ostali čak imaju pravo da nas dostignu, da nas prestignu, to nas se ne tiče. Ciljevi nacionalizma uvek su dostižni ciljevi, dostižni jer su skromni, skromni jer su podli. Ne skače se, ne baca se kamena s ramena, da bi se dostigao svoj sopstveni maksimum, nego da bi se nadigrali oni, jedini, slični, a tako različni, zbog kojih je igra započeta. Nacionalista se, rekosmo, ne boji nikog, osim svoga brata. Ali od njega se boji strahom egzistencijalnim, patoloÅ¡kim; pobeda izabranog neprijatelja jeste njegov apsolutni poraz, ukidanje njegovog bića. PoÅ¡to je straÅ¡ljivac i nikogović, nacionalista ne ističe sebi viÅ¡e ciljeve. Pobeda nad izabranim neprijateljem, onim drugim, jeste apsolutna pobeda. Stoga je nacionalizam ideja beznaÄ‘a, ideologija mogućne pobede, zagarantovana pobeda, poraz nikad konačan. Nacionalista se ne boji nikoga, “nikog do boga”, a njegov bog jeste bog po njegovoj meri, bledi roÄ‘ak Žil, negde za nekim drugim stolom, njegov brat roÄ‘eni, isto toliko nemoćan koliko i on sam, “ponos porodice”, porodični entitet, svesni i organizovani deo porodice i nacije – bledi roÄ‘ak Džim. Rekli smo, dakle, biti nacionalista znači biti individuum bez obaveze. “To je kukavica koja ne želi da prizna svoj kukavičluk; ubica koji potiskuje svoju naklonost ka ubistvu, nemoćan sasvim da je priguÅ¡i a koji se, ipak, ne usuÄ‘uje da ubije, osim iz potaje ili u anonimnosti gomile; nezadovoljnik koji se ne usuÄ‘uje da se pobuni iz straha od konsekvenci svoje pobune” – slika i prilika citiranog Sartrovog antisemite. I odakle, pitamo se, taj kukavičluk, to opredeljenje, taj zamah nacionalizma u naÅ¡e doba? Pritisnut ideologijama, na marginama druÅ¡tvenih kretanja, zbijen i izgubljen meÄ‘u konfrontiranim ideologijama, nedorastao individualnoj pobuni, jer mu je ona uskraćena, individuum se naÅ¡ao u procepu, u praznini, ne učestvuje u druÅ¡tvenom životu a druÅ¡tveno biće, individualista a individualnost mu uskraćena u ime ideologije, i Å¡ta mu preostaje drugo nego da svoje druÅ¡tveno biće traži drugde? Nacionalista je refulirani individualista, nacionalizam je refulirani (kolektivni) izraz tog i takvog individualizma, ideologija i antiideologija…

Danilo Kiss
Po-etika, knjiga druga, 1974. (intervjui)

—————-

Sasvim u skladu sa Kissovim opisom, jedno “Drusstvo srpskih rodjaka” definisse u ovom neobuzdanom fassisticckom manifestu svoj “pogled na svet”, svoju antiviziju sveta ljudi slobodnih od svakog razuma:
Начела и смернице Српског сабора Двери — 1. део
Начела и смернице Српског сабора Двери — 2. део

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 1 Comment »

Hacker the Peter

Hacker the Peter Previous Next Close

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 1 Comment »

Alex

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 8 Comments »

Meli

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 1 Comment »

Manati bassist

Manati bassist Previous Next Close
Manati brassists
Manati brassists Previous Next Close

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...

Comments No Comments »

The last photo of Yoko Ono & John Lennon, made by Annie Leibowitz for the cover of the Rolling Stone magazine on December 8th, 1980, several hours before Lennon was murdered.

“On December 8, 1980, Leibovitz had a photo shoot with John Lennon for Rolling Stone, promising him he would make the cover. After she had initially tried to get a picture with just Lennon alone, which is what Rolling Stone wanted, Lennon insisted that both he and Yoko Ono be on the cover. Leibovitz then tried to re-create something like the making out scene from the Double Fantasy album cover, a picture that she loved. She had John remove his clothes and curl up next to Yoko. Liebovitz recalls, “What is interesting is she said she’d take her top off and I said, ‘Leave everything on’ — not really preconceiving the picture at all. Then he curled up next to her and it was very, very strong. You couldn’t help but feel that she was cold and he looked like he was clinging on to her. I think it was amazing to look at the first Polaroid and they were both very excited. John said, ‘You’ve captured our relationship exactly. Promise me it’ll be on the cover.’ I looked him in the eye and we shook on it.” Leibovitz was the last person to professionally photograph Lennon — he was shot and killed five hours later.”

Yoko Ono and John Lennon

Yoko Ono and John Lennon Previous Next Close
By Annie Leibowitz

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (8 votes, average: 3.88 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...

Comments No Comments »

60 years of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

From Borselinija blog I recommend also:
MEĐUNARODNI DAN LJUDSKIH PRAVA
Å EZDESETOGODIÅ NJICA UNIVERZALNE DEKLARACIJE O LJUDSKIM PRAVIMA

60 years of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

60 years of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Previous Next Close
Performing: Mileta Paladin & Mark Krojacc

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (4 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 3 Comments »

Marina Abramovic: “Rhythm 0
1974

To test the limits of the relationship between performer and audience, Abramović developed one of her most challenging performances. She assigned a passive role to herself, with the public being the force which would act on her.

Abramović had placed upon a table 72 objects that people were allowed to use (a sign informed them) in any way that they chose. Some of these were objects that could give pleasure, while others could be wielded to inflict pain, or to harm her. Among them were scissors, a knife, a whip, and, most notoriously, a gun and a single bullet. For six hours the artist allowed the audience members to manipulate her body and actions.
Initially, members of the audience reacted with caution and modesty, but as time passed (and the artist remained impassive) several people began to act quite aggressively. As Abramović described it later:
“The experience I learned was that…if you leave decision to the public, you can be killed.” … “I felt really violated: they cut my clothes, stuck rose thorns in my stomach, one person aimed the gun at my head, and another took it away. It created an aggressive atmosphere. After exactly 6 hours, as planned, I stood up and started walking toward the public. Everyone ran away, escaping an actual confrontation.” (Daneri, 29; and 30).

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 3 Comments »

Marina Abramovic, Ulay: “Rest Energy

Wir stehen einander in Schräglage gegenüber. Sehen einander in die Augen. Ich halte einen Bogen. Ulay spannt die Sehne und hält den Pfeil, der direkt auf mein Herz gerichtet ist. Mikrophone auf beiden Herzen geben die schneller werdenden Herzschläge wieder.

Rest energy

Rest energy Previous Next Close
Abramovic, Marina; Ulay, »Rest Energy«, 1980
Photo: Rudi Monster

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (1 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 7 Comments »

Shandor looked very much like my father, and I was the same age as his son. His wife just threw him out after a heavy fight, so he brought some wine to the Danube pier and drank it while watching tourists passing by. Few coincidences, one bottle of sweet wine, one night in Budapest. And two sentimental fools.

Don't stop the alternative way

Don't stop the alternative way Previous Next Close
Don't stop the alternative way
Don't stop the alternative way Previous Next Close
Photos: Maya

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 3 Comments »

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 1 Comment »

Kiklop, please keep a secret what he was drinking. :)

Street portrait

Street portrait Previous Next Close

TjahYou can do it betterOkGoood :)Wau! :))) (No Ratings Yet)
Loading...Loading...

Comments 25 Comments »