power and death of imagination via embodiment?

Some claim that power fears or dreads imagination and that is the basic radical element in art. That art always questions, imagines the world different. Even if its something seemingly innocent and simple, like a drawing. A stoke of a dark pencil that sheds a new light on a familiar surrounding. A re-imaging and by that, a sharing of an imagination of life, or a bit of it. Be it a tree, an idea, a death, an object, etc..

(This is indeed a very traditional and enclosed idea and practices of “art” which am not sure can Be actually “art” however am trying to focus of general accepted conceptions of art – rather than my own views of art and the ideas of it.)

“Art” and its relation to power can also be seen slightly different. As a display,a show, a performance and spectacle and a cultural practice of – err – power.
The traditional sequence of sharing “art” (art-linked stuff), seems to be a process of “materialisation” or embodiment of imagination. To materialise, to embody the imagination, one has to go through centrain loops which demand investments of time, energy, money, social-capital (eg, networking/friends), and opportunities. All these, to occure, demand an aquisition and usage of power. A power which, in my view, ends up as a vail on the imagination. A result that in effect places Power rather than Imagination on display and show.

Here’s an example:

The imagined reality of floating fish might seem initially as a display of a common but fertile imagination. An imagination that attempts to embody itself in the physically shared environment and become a part of people’s daily lives.
However, to get into doing this particular embodiment, to get to have this particular realisation of one’s imagination, the practice involves elements such as an imposition of imagery, political power’s agreement for the objects to be where they are, and a financial power usages which, to be “justified” seem to seek pleasing the viewers eyes. As if saying, hey, we occupy your political, social and visual sensations via power and have to agree to that because it pleases your mind.

More over, such practices that use and require power to Be, thrive on the idea that one person or a group might have the privilege of ability to share their imagination, while others – as individuals or some collections – can not have that very ability of imagination sharing in public.

Im my mind this kind of practice forms a certain imposition, a controlling sequence over people’s imagination. It thrives from the idea that imagination – in and of itself – is NOT embodied already, and requires ways to materialise. Ways to be which will require investments and direction of energies which is mostly well beyond the realm of most people’s lives.

To question, if not challenge, such power-imagination frequencies or spectrum, am very interested in developing a way which enables to inter-prate imagination in a simple way. Leaving the imagination free to Be and Become a materialisation – or even open to materialisations and embodiments – by many people.
That is where the IF A ^ ? comes in as a simple basic sequence within waves or spectrum of given imaginations..
However, at the moment am unclear re sharing this..

How can that be done without doing another display??? Without claiming a way of being and becoming another form of power practice entity??

Leave a Reply