quarta-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2020

The Rat - The Experience

 





The infection, the neurology of the mind, the disease… the structure of the evil, the bad: the rat carries the entire meanings of the belief…, the human DNA, so well-solved by the science, the last common ancestor of the monkey, the origin of the hands: the care and the tact, the observation of that who feels his presence: he knows where he is, he just hasn’t an answer for the exit: the human being defined himself as a rat of laboratory, a scientist:  For this, paramount the concordance with the research, as an informative formula: so the experience defined itself as life: the explanation of the sentiment of the artist, it is also of the scientist.

Are a couple elements of the rationalist structure of the drawing, the as much the human vision it’s involved with the misunderstanding of the natural, the as much of the vision it’s compromised with the design of objective-reality. Are a couple relevant aspects of my “work”, per so saying, in the latu sensu of a perspective.

 It’s the sentiment of the research: the search for the known:. the end of the observation is having been its own experience, it’s what moves the science: finding a way out for life, and not coming to any result: be it whatever it is, it will be the bitter. So, Corona - The Rat, it’s also The Scientist. It could be Darwin, Einstein, Newton… their failures and bitterness are well-known, because it’s the human status of the survival, the implantation of the problem, in its minimum constitutions.

The science, just as religion, was something which created me a lot of problems: and dimensioning them ended up being an elemental part in that which I do. As I’ve already said, I disconsider a lot the art and the artist: for all the angles, the angles are the same: constructionists. It was something that I’ve seen in Van Gogh, Da Vinci and Michelangelo, the hideout of the perfection.. an artist may deceive another artist, but he hasn’t how to deceive himself, he knows where he missed: but for that where he erred, there’s no fixing: For this kind of things, the work is undone and, even though one makes another one, it won’t be equal to the one which was lost. In mode that, none work, from any artist, will be his best: it’s not exactly in the sense that ‘the best is intangible’, in that where Plato angled as approximation: just as Euclid, Plato wasn’t a drawer, also. I’ve seen few works of drawers, because I’ve never seen the drawing, in that where the line stayed misunderstood as a straight-line: the background, in the equations of the mind, in itemizing spaces and focusing the element-image as portrait, and finding belo Monalisa, as if the face of something were the nature, or that the nature could be seen through an image… Michelangelo sculpted his face in the Sistine Chapel the as much as the Book sculpted his’s: Adam’s finger was not fallen, but broken, because so God sculpted his hand in the nature, in the monkey’s hand, in that where the hand isn’t form, but action.. .

In my work interdimension of the mind, the rat appears in many drawings, and the many drawings makes part of the hall of creative things where I call the attention for something. What intrigued me the most was a sketch of something which I had dreamed about, I too was trying to understand what I had seen, and what intrigued me the most was the way as the rat went to stop by inside a testing tube, being dragged by a liquid, through a tunnel, and reaching the end of the pit, a kind of sewer.. . Test tubes are used for blood exams, samples of something… it was an experience, and the sampling was involved with a kind of sentiment and interpretation, and the sentiment is of that who’s outside and can see that which’s inside: the landscape of the observation was the same. Are difficult angles. How did the rat went stop by there..? dragged by the idea…; what place is this..? from the organic to physics, the substantiality it’s the same: it’s mass and energy.

Yes, the drawing has colors, the rat is white, and the liquid it’s blue: it wasn’t blood, it was water… the rat was also made of that substance.. . The perspective it’s involved with the transparence, it’s impossible you draw a transparence without following a preemptive logic of spaces and shadows, in that which has to be backwards and that which must be in front: the localization it’s the primordial angle of the mind.  By default, black it’s the background and the white it’s the foreground: the transparence it’s made with the gray.. are techniques quite few explanative, and nothing valid for an apprentice, if he hasn’t the talent, many artists have problems with the traces, and others, with the colored..   and others, polyform’s difficulty, don’t define the form which they’ve seen, and in the abstract concept of the talent it ends up not being something nor even visual.  In mode that, for the drawing being able of being seen, it will have to, obligatorily, follow rules of signals, something very few explanative: that “that wasn’t there”, and “that appeared”..: The substantiality of anything it’s involved with rules of signals. This doesn’t explain the sentiments, from the artist’s angle.

In mode that, the sentiment in matter was the search, and the search was involved with the escape, and the escape, with the await: the search for a substance it’s involved with the understanding of the disease: something infectious, transmissible: contagious.. a strange understanding, in the nature..: these things disturbed me for a lot of time, in part, for I be contrary to the medicine, in that where it moves and maintains itself as the cure, remedies and vaccines, this is all a craziness: the necessity of that which one hasn’t materializes the substantiality of something which still doesn’t exist, from that which’s not had: the as much as the experience it’s involved with the search. The mass vaccination of Covid19 it’s a spoken portrait of a human result, and his complete misunderstanding of the natural: one consuming the existence of a disease will never be the guarantee of a vaccine, it’s a too broad misunderstanding of something, in its tantric state of functioning: the machine cannot stop, the machine cannot wait, and if the solution of the problem it’s not given, the state of await will follow the determinist line of the action: the humanity remounts its entire primitivity, when the unknown appeared, when the knowledge was proposed, in the maximum where the rationality reaches: God’s portrait. As if the guarantee were the answer for all the senses, all the searches, and this were indeed any solution, where one seeks for a solution in that which by itself would be solved, and proposes a problem, for being the problem the continuity of the research, and this is the continuity of the experience. The human etapismo in its evolutive sense, followed the judgement of the straight-line, turning the human being a prisoner, a hostage of an invention, an illusion, of a fiction, a virtuality, the consumption of an image, as if the body were virtual indeed. The experience extrapolates, and much, the own technology.

Because indeed, for all the angles, the disease will be always artificial: such a thing hasn’t how superimposed itself on the natural, independently of its finalities and judgements, few matters its procedence, as well as its consequences… numbers, amounts.. because these things don’t go beyond values: it’s the spoken-portrait of the rat, nothing more than this. The ones who don’t feel like this, step themselves away from this. I say this because there are many who believes that Corona is artificial and was produced in human labs as a deterministic way of intervention in something, which the artifice, in the latu sensu of a survival, hasn’t the capacity of justifying any of its actions, as if a human selection could indeed have the capacity of disexplaining the nature, for those who called the lab life, for their bodies already being of metal. It’s a simple detailing, which’s in everything I write... It is a small comment, of my indignation, which, as I’ve already said, it’s only an example, in middle the contextualizing of something, because indeed, the angle it’s the perspective.

Disease, be it whatever it is, it’s involved with the sentiments: the human understanding of the organic it’s the understanding of the lens, thinking that from a drop of water came an ocean, thinking that such a thing exists, a drop of water, a grain of sand… The preemptive concept of the object dominates the scene of the mind, as if one thing could be the filling of the other, as if something were empty.. : That a place already existed before, and suddenly, the water appeared: that there was earth, but there was no water, that there was water but there was no earth… there were both, but they were separated: This is a vision, the human vision is a perspective.

In many of my interdimension’s works, I show some angles, most of these drawings are guarded, I will publish some, once in a while..  they are, in general, intrigants … And almost always I feel in the duty of commenting something, for that a standard angle do not establish itself and that don’t stay so lost in observation: which would certainly happen if I stayed shut.  It’s a simple drawing, but I’ve liked this one: the rat.



I’ve made two more versions of it, which shows the second dimension, the duality, the reflexion: the human perspective didn’t evolve from this. And the third dimension, the observer, the image in the screen… .

The sentiments are different, but the first one, the simplest, it’s the sentiment in matter: it is not under the optics of the conception, but of the unknown.

The drawing, in the pencil, in the raw, and in the loose paper, has this capacity, of bypassing the perspective: it’s the closest the art may be seen, in the black and white: that has the capacity of bypassing the scene of the meanings, if in some moment in life you’ve felt like a rat, if the life it’s any experience without an exit: if Christ, for example, someday felt bad with the weakness of the flesh, on feeling himself obliged to do something which he didn’t want to, if doing the nontaste was the guarantee of an exemption of his own sentiments: if there was something hid in the glass: the distillated spirit of something, and the matter in that where the alchemy of the mind could indeed transform the water into something which wasn’t itself, in that where it couldn’t be another thing..

 As if the purity of the art were involved in the distillation of the words, in that where the art could be institutionalized, where that which wasn’t seen could be seen, for being the perspective an observation, as if the metamorphosis of something could be contextualized in images... as if this sublime moment of the mind, the changing of state of something, could be photographed, which would be its emotional state.. .
My drawings used to carry multiple understandings, even more because, in all of them, the same phenomenon: something I had dreamed with.. .never something that I’ve seated for drawing, based in projects, experiments or life perspectives: nothing relational. And as these things always made part of my day-by-day, in a certain way I’ve developed a functionality for dealing with this kind of thing, which didn’t treat exactly on a subjectivity, for not being a projection, in the latu sensu of an abstract, it wasn’t about a creative process. And understanding what I had drawn, in altered state, in determined point, almost became a problem for me, if the force of the perspective were not stepped-away in grouping ups of layers: And the over-positions of planes, the way as the layers aggroup, generating a linear reflexion, which’s basically the contextualization of an idea, didn’t steal the scene of what is a natural form. When one hasn’t the previous knowledge of this kind of things, the artist will certainly lose himself, and inevitable, he’ll enter in rationality without understanding what indeed is going on: and will lose himself in middle the multiple interpretations, because the final result was placed ahead, with a force of result: something was marked, an arrival, the ready, the finished: and the temptatives of explaining these things are way intense and irregulars: and the difficulty it’s in one perceiving that a drawing, for the simplest as it may be, in its size and complexity, it never is the isolated part of something: and that which may be understood as something isolated, it’s not separated in parts.


So, the understanding is that the test tube treated itself of a finger,  and the finger, the transparence of a body: and the sentiment of the body, the substantiality, seen in the transparence: the emotional state of something: which’s the own substantiality that that carries.. .




The fourth angle is the most difficult one, because, it is the hand who carries.. :the final image treated itself of a scientist in a lab, carrying a research: it was a human hand,  which carried itself and refused itself to see its own observation, its relation with the defect, in a ‘disexplicative’  way, wanting to see another thing: and the image of this other thing being the conception of the artist: A photon, traveling at the speed of light, in the dark matter, in the vacuum,  in the universe…the structure of the particle, seen in a quantum field.. things of this kind… . For all the angles, the perspective will be always the plane, independently of the black being backwards and the white being forward: the contrast defines the regular spaces: it’s how the image it’s made in the mind.

The definition of any space it’s not a geometric condition, but of the form. I’ve had difficulty for explaining for theologists and scientists the problem of their ideas, in what they cannot be the nature, and of the need, that the natural needs to be redefined, outside a perspective, in the inside-the-mind. This isn’t a vision.

But the rat’s hands are human’s : and this could already be an explanation, and which’s also his relation with the eyes: it’s the best way of understanding the human, and which’s the relation of its passage with the nature. Yes, the rat should be at the Louvre, in Paris, just as the Metal Tree being in the place of the Eiffel’s Tower, it would give more sense to the human masterpiece, the ‘how beautiful’ a construction is.. the human being be the result of his own experience: the disease: it’s the limit of the cure: the perspective of something be the portrait of an existence.