provocations

lately i've been put on the accused post for making some kind provocation. frankly i believe i have made provocations in the past, but not this one time. so i thought about it a little.

let's start with the word. www.wordreference.com defines provocation as:
1. unfriendly behavior that causes anger or resentment
2. needed encouragement; "the result was a provocation of vigorous investigation
3. something that incites or provokes; a means of arousing or stirring to action

so there are 3 different meanings to the same word. the 1st has a negative side, while the 2nd is positive, and 3rd neutral. of course whenever te term is used, the attiude in which it is used is obvious from the context in which it appears.
but i think that when an act done in public and is being assessed by various people, and causes a provocation, in actuallity one cannot really determine the right meaning of the word. what might cause anger in one person, might give another a needed encouragement to do something irregular, whichperhaps have a positive result (other than criticising the provocator), and in anycase, be it positive or negative, once a provocation has been spotted, it stirs some sort of action - negative crticism, or positive, in the form of insiting new thoughts (which are metaphisical actions).

so what's the score? supposing i have made a provocation? is it good or bad?

well, i think that the first question that should be answered is can there be a strictly positive provocation in art? every work of art, be it static or performative, once it aquires a literal message of some sort, immidietly recieves with it the context from which the message was made. these are the beliefs and morals of the society in which it was created. history shows us that these beliefs and morals bhave been negated somewhere along history, so in theory, any provocation in art might be cause anger and resentment. but then again, an artist knows the character of the audience. the artist knows what the majority of the audience would think of a provocation. so in theory it is possible to make a provocation that no one will feel anger or resntment toward it.

but then comes a different question. if everyone in the audience approves of the given provocation, it means that they all agree on the message the artist transmitted. and if so, then what is the point of it? if the artist does not really inspire new thoughts, then what this artist does is kitch. the artist may have entertained the audience, but that's it. nothing new was gained by the audience due to this provocation apart from entertainment., and for entertainment entertainers best do the job. arrtists are a differnet brand from entertainers, especially due to his ability to inspire new thoughts in the audience.

therefore i conclude that while a strictly positive provocation is theoretically possible, it is undesireable that artists use them. provocations will have to cause anger and resentment if they are to be done in an artistical manor. so now we come to the next question: if provocations in art should cause anger and resentment, then why should they be used at all? if provocations have to have a negative side to them, why the hell do we need them?

and why indeed? let's try to imagine an art world without provocations. what does that mean "an art world without provocations"? let's go back to the definition. it means an art world that does not ever cause anger and resentment through provocations, an art world that gives no needed encouragement to anything through provocations, and an art world that does not stir action through provocations. ok. so what does that mean?

if there were no other elements in art other than provocations, then that would mean an art world that does not affect reality in a physical or mental way. this would basically leave art to decorate our lives without us noticing it's existance in any conscious way. while some people maydeisre such a world, i believe that modern artists find this kind of art world to be undesirable. why should i want to exhibit my art if no one will be conscious of its existence?

so in order for art without provocations to strive it must find different ways to encourage the audince and stir actions. so can art find these ways? let's say through twists in subliminal messages and so. what happens then? simple. the message becomes blurred. the artist cannot commit to a single strict message because that will invoke a provocation among some in the audience. everything must be half said. this situation may bring an awkward situation where a work of art might be understood in a way which is opposite to that which was intended. like nitzche books being praised by the nazis. so this leads me to believe that being vague is no good. another possibility is to go the other way around. to expicitly explain why something in the artwork is not provocative, and to embed this explenation within the artwork. i personally believe that this is even worse for the simple reason that it leaves art out of the picture. instead of an artwork we get an essay with art as decorative descriptions. this is not art. this a child's book with illustration. personally. to this day, i could not find a way for art to "work" without provcations of some sort

so until someone finds a differnet better way, we have to have these provocations in art, for art to function, especially in art of modern times. there must be some submersive element in art, that might cause anger and resentment in the audience. it must have it so that art will contnue to fullfill any role other than decoration. well then, how should we use these provocations in the best way?

again i believe that the best way to deal with this is through negation. provocations should not be done in a way that the audience allready knows. it must be something new, otherwise the artist is "cheating" and mascarading as an artist while in fact all the artist does is shallow entertainment. but that is not enough. the artist should fullfill the positive sides of provcations. the artist must encourage some thing or behaviour through this provocation. the audience must be given some sort of an alternative that is demonstarted through the provcation. that could be either in an explicit mannor, that is that the audience will be encouraged to mimic his behaviour, or in implicit mannor. an implicit mannor suggests that the audience, after experiencing this provocative art will beleive that there is some path which was thought to be blocked, and in reality is a possibillity. like the unfolding of a waking dream. then come the last meaning, the provocation should not strive to achieve stagnation in change. a feasible action should be offered to the audience. something they can actually do, and not something that will lead them to despair over the impossibility of life. and why? well, this a simple out of fairness of the artist. a responsible artist should have a complete alternate world to offer the audience, and not just show the defficiencies of this one. that work should be left for analysts, journalists, and reporters of all sorts. an artist that only shows the deficits of life, which are completely unsolvable, is kind of like a tyran...well,you could use that choice...your decision

so i conclde that provocations are essential to the art world. there may be some art works thta serve as mere decorations, but these are redudant

provocations are of the essence of art

---

ok so what if it is? things are usually not simply black and white. is there anything which is "too provocative" even for art?

the answer, i believe, is that nothing is "too provocative" for art. it's like saying art is "too good". but any provocation can be multi layered, and it just might be, that through one of these layers, a lack of balance between these sides of provocation is possible, making the provocation partyially shallow. for example, in a sentence there could be a part which talks about one thing, a valid criticism of society, and another part of the sentence is pure kitsche (example: we are all criminals who persecute the other for being a better crook than we are, i will drink your blood with the moonlight and heal the world...welll, i don't know). to this all i have to say is that an artist's quality assurence is one of his responsibilities as ana rtist. if such transgression occurs, then...well, you just don't have to like him.

there are of course the restrictions of laws, but i think that today the public has been stupified in such a way that people try to stretch the span of the judicial system, to prevent lawful change and lawful discussion of ideas.

my stand on this is that if it ain't illeagal, and still criticism is being put on an artist for an artistic provocation, then the fault lies soley on the audience. the audience proclaim to be of art consumers, while in reality all it wants is entertainment. by doing so it attempts to opress art, crush it's very fiber. backwardness, charletanic, and i personally believe that this kind of behaviour should be persecuted and these people be brought to justice in a court of law