The Failure of the perfect trilogy:
· The fact that the reshape of barriers has become a constant reality, the creator also feels compelled to lose even more. The spectators as well as the creator throughout the times have become more detached even when there are works that are interactive and request the participation of the spectator. However this is simply a lie because the barriers are not broken and there was not so far a dialog between the artist and the spectator, because always we feel distant to what the artist is making even though there is a community work.
The work can be the last resource to make that happen because there isn’t a truly connection that can sustain the conflicting relation within a trilogy that seems not to have an end. An infinite cycle which disturb our sanity!
(It can be seen by the arrows that there is an impossibility of approach, there is only a dot in the space that seems to conjugate the three elements but unfortunately is lost). In addition the memory that remains of the trilogy becomes also lost in space even though the aim of the trilogy is to reconnect them again. However not even the memory of time seems to remember that happening.
It doesn’t exist a possible approach. Even though that there is a subversion of roles the picture remains the same. For me this trilogy is recent because in the past there was this kind of connection between things such as the work but only as a mere vehicle that was appropriated, dissected, destroyed, raped and lastly murdered. So in order to create a kind of replacement, was created the work (the work that owns its own identity among the others that have already taken their place in the cycle) that was introduced in order to enable the creation of a perfect trilogy, but after all what is about this object/work:
I think it is relevant to say that as far I am concerned is the introduction of a complete new variable to the equation. This new variable had the intention to create a new approach but it didn’t work out because the three factors are still drifting apart. The object assumes in a pretentious way the new position of the modern artist. The object becomes then the center of the attentions. This in itself is a position that has its value but the artist doesn’t want to lose the recognition of his hard work! So he includes himself in a dialog where the variables become more subjective of what they already are, but the spectator is still the last one to receive the work having only as function to approve or disapprove as the conception of trilogy determines the space and time in a era where that doesn’t exist anymore. So as consequence we can take the conclusion that what interests in the end are the artists and his egos. In a way the spectator has become valuable to the artist only by the fact that he can SEE – probably the creator is blind! Of course he is not making something for himself alone but the creator want results and the spectators want conclusions! How is this possible if we are only changing the variables of the same equation in order to obtain similar results for different contexts! It doesn’t make sense but is the creator fully responsible for this!
I don’t believe in that because the spectator doesn’t make enough effort to realize what he is seeing but in the other hand why make an effort if the work want to take my senses away and my sensibility and replace them by something other from the originals that are strange to the spectator. Why should I put some effort if I am going to be used as Guiney Pig and also the result is not relevant for me but for the artist. So it can be easily realized why there is no possible relation besides anger!
The trilogy is in the end the product not of the artist but of a background that supports all the world of art. These identities that are behind the curtain are always resetting the scenario and the artist is only a little puppet that has only as function to read the text and play it. “The artist is the ultimate clown” Bruce Nauman. Why so much proposals and revolutions, if the result has always the same consequence.
I don’t want with this to make a proposal because the world is full of good intentions.
My belief is that the answer is not in the artist neither the problem is in the spectator. It also isn’t in the dissociation of the trilogy. The dissociation of the trilogy would be the end of everything but also the start of something with biblical impact! Although there is a risen of a new understanding of what art can embrace such as other elements and other dimensions. I don’t want with this to say that there are elements from the past or elements that can make us sweat of joy when faced with something really remarkable. The people that think that this kind of emotion is no longer possible are very wrong about their conceptions.
Art has followed a path that made of the spectator the central factor. However he is still the little sheep lost in the open field looking for someone to lead him. I also don’t support the idea of recovering the time as a lost memory, however I don’t think that still exist in the days we live in. throughout times we were constantly overwhelmed by theories that had the intention of being an explosion of senses as well the lack of them! The history is not linear and the creators know that fact perfectly and that is why there are still creators otherwise they would be eliminated due to its flawless irrelevance. This is why the spectator is constantly vomiting what he is given incessantly. Maybe we are now facing a necessity but what king of necessity is this one that seems to be common to every creator and even the spectator. Therefore exists a mutual necessity that can be pictured as the negative and the positive of the photography terminology. So even though they have similar needs they don’t seem to have any success in accomplishing anything because they are constantly refusing each one so that they have their own attention instead of being overshadowed by the other!
This situation can be understood as a game that has as main rule to achieve supremacy in relation to the other. Despite these facts, we have to have in consideration that the spectator doesn’t have any word to say in this game. Its presence is itself enough to intimidate the artist! Therefore the artist is the only one that tries to create this game to win or lose it, according to its needs! What turns the game a bit confusing is the fact that someone doesn’t let the spectator enter the game but creates it from him! However the situation that we are facing is good because if the spectator would enter in the game we wouldn’t have art but instead television debates between two individuals discussion nothing relevant but still would be regarded as something extraordinary! What I want to say is that the artist doesn’t want to integrate the spectator but use it. (So far so good), But we have to remember that the spectator is not any idiot to let someone use Him/her because he wants! (He likes to feel dominated by an individual that doesn’t know!). Once again my intuition as creator is to realize that I am working with someone that doesn’t know most of what I am saying so is better to make him a picture to make him aware that we are in different beaches of the same ocean. (Who is the one that has more influence upon the other?) I would say that is you as reader! (Different elements that come to complicate the equation don’t stop showing up, what disturbs its conclusion, but in the end no one anymore wants to see the result because we already know it) …
