Browsing by Author "Biagini, Gian Luigi"

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Anartist and its intervention-machines
    (Aalto University, 2019) Biagini, Gian Luigi; Vadén, Tere, Prof., Tampere University, Finland; Taiteen laitos; Department of Art; Taiteiden ja suunnittelun korkeakoulu; School of Arts, Design and Architecture; Kallio-Tavin, Mira, Prof., Aalto University, Department of Art, Finland
    The dissertation is composed of 7 articles, some published and others rejected, which concern the Anartist’s interventions. The Anartist (Artist Anarchist) is a figure that has arisen, even in his name, as an avatar revealed in my expressive practice (which then became research). The praxis, which emerged from a pre-subjective need of the flesh, consists in the destratification of an authentic and heterogeneous refrain. The Anartist, in its deterritorializing intervention, can experience a chaosmotic event out of the constraint of a capitalist design implemented in the urban space. This subversive moment, that allows access to the pure experience of a destratification without external references and the appearance of the phenoumenon in itself, is also a mystical and foundational experience of a new ungrounded ground. This foundation is in the refrain itself, as singularity of a praxis connected to a general movement of deterritorialization. The avatar, in its emergence, intensifies its refrain which becomes consonant with that of the “chaosmogonic singleton” which stratifies and destratifies the biosphere as the center of our Being. Thus the practice of the Anartist grafts the subversive, the political, the magical and the mythological desiring production in a revelatory and divinatory continuum. Since the mask of the Anartist is trans-subjective, it also responds in original way to the problem of combining “one and many” in a Heteron, which is the central problem in “art activism” , which aims to unite the political with the artistic. The Heteron of the Anartist does not compress the potential Arete of each singularity as the Common does. The Anartist’s interventionism is part of an aesthetic current that unfolds from J.J. Rousseau, passing from the Situationists (Punk, Black Bloc), up to the current discourse that has its roots in the post-68 French theory. The main attitude that crosses this outsider current of art is to subvert artistic and political representation through a direct intervention in urban space. A “presentation” without the mediation of theatrical dispositives as galleries, museum and so on; a manifestation of the General Will in action, which also has mystical and chaosmological connotations of access to the “sacred” in a “profane” space. To be consistent with this attitude, my dissertation is a dissertation-intervention that intervenes on academic contextual and textual space, in such a processual way that, as praxis-objectile, it can “present” itself as a “shape” without being represented by a pre-emptive “form”. The articles and their “out of field” thus become pre-texts for an anti-institutional textual practice that recalls “Post-structuralism” in its contestation of the institution from the margins through the “writing” (Derrida), the “genre” (Lyotard), the “minor literature” (Deleuze and Guattari) and the “document” (Foucault) but also the Situationist-Intervention (Baudrillard) and the ethnomethodology of Erving Goffman based on subversive acting. However, the guiding spirits of this dissertation are many and have their roots in Aristotle (even if Plato can not be easily liquidated). The philosophical view of praxis that sustains my narrative is an intensification-reversion of Aristotle that begins with Nietzsche, Heidegger, Bataille, Deleuze and Guattari. Therefore, mine is not a theoretical dissertation, nor a poietic one, but one which takes place from the quasi-obscure point of view of “praxis”. In this case, it is more the percept that emerges from the intervention that founds the narrative synthesis than vice versa. The “Conclusions” contains a more precise mapping of the revelations, intuitions and synthesis associated with my experience of praxis that offers also a phenomenological “description” of the transcendental conditions of the field (basically “Difference” instead of “Identity”) and proposes tools and arguments to deal with the smooth, heterogeneous and paradoxical field of “artistic research” in a way in which one term of the edgy in-between, the academic, does not cannibalize the other (the artistic) through its anxiety of homogenizing “Knowledge” and depressing “Understanding”.