Be Yourself
Words that always lead me to questions What am I? Who am I? and also How am I?

We all already known that we all were born naked. In the beginning of life, we were powerless. Then our parents treated us, gave us foods, security, and also education, so we can grow and thrive.

In the development of ours, Nativism Theory said that something that touches our thrives is a heredity from our parents. In the other hand, Empiricism mentioned that we were born like a white paper. So our environment gives a big influence to our thrive. Convergence becomes a blend of them (Nativism and Empiricism).

So that, because there are things that could be influences to my life and formed myself now. that mentioned above questions come up.

Common sense that I have as a human being that had been influenced by a lot of things lead me to a consciousness that I could be anything that I want. In fact, I am what I want to be, my life is pretending.

Myself is something mutable and something that is free from any holds.

Between two options: become a withdrawn person or become a shameless person, in fact, I can be both of them. However, I have consciousness for freedom to decide to be something. When I chose to be a withdrawn person and I never do something shameful, I hold myself and put it to a freedom that is never free.

If I pretend myself to be a withdrawn person and once a time I did something shameful, people will say that I ain't be myself.

So what is the meaning of “Be Yourself” when our life is pretending?
Is it when we are naked and senseless?

As a film work, I think it's not a so good film.

In a densely populated area, one of its problems is space for playing. I tried to raise this issue to my script. I hoped that viewers do not just get the issue of space of playing, but they may relate the "space" word with the other issues from the other perceptions. 

We reserve the rights to space and should seize it. Even though sometimes the weaker one must give the way to the stronger and compromise.

Morality and hypocrisy are the other issues in today's modern era. Lust and the other needs could start the conflict and people may do anything to get what they want even interfere the rights of others. That is the reality.

In this script, I tried to make classes of perception. The first is viewers may just get the kids' conflict. The second is viewers may realize there is something in the room. And the third is may viewers get the issues of gender, space for doing something and working, and the conflict of needs.

I tried to make this script as simple as it could because we don't have a lot of crew and times (in fact that we just done this work for 3 hours). The most simple is the shot and the playing area that is never panned for 90 degrees left and right. We made it as narrow as it could. And I think it's relevant to the issue.

So here is our simple work. 
Turn on the CC for English Subtitle

Marc Jacobs' store was vandalized by Kidult. Then he made and sold products that show his vandalized front wall store.

The main meaning of vandalism is destroying activity. Things that could be destroyed are varied from physical things such as a wall, traffic sign, rolling-door, bus stop, painting, or ex-boyfriend's car. And also non-physical things such as writing or something. Still not just them, indeed.

Vandalism (noun): The act of deliberately destroying or damaging property - Merriam-Webster

What kind of destruction? Some people agree that thing is broke or destroyed but the others don't. Some who don't agree just think that those are okay, not already broke, still can be used, etc. 

Like what was on Marc Jacobs' mind, I guess. How could he sell T-Shirt showing his vandalized store for $686? Was he thought that his property just destroyed? or he just got a new idea? I think that he was not harmed by that little piece of painting. When Kidult sprayed "$686" graffiti on Marc Jacobs' store again. He made and sold products again and sold it for $686. He looks like doesn't get a problem with that graffiti. But I don't know, exactly.

Is that just show his concession? The not concession I think but how to react coolly. By the way about concession. If a vandal intends to do vandalism, he had prepared spray, wore a black mask, black hoodie, and then came to a compost-store. When he had done doing tagging then he ran. In the morning the store owner realized and act like nothing happened. That can't be called vandalism, I guess because the owner gives his concession.

The opposite is when an elementary kid doodled his neighbour's wall then the neighbour feels harmed by his action. Even though the kid didn't intend to do vandalism and doesn't know what vandalism is or his action is breaking the law. It could be vandalism because of his action technically deliberate. 

Now, poor the kid who doesn't know anything. Because the subjective of "destroy". The neighbour saw this and the kid didn't. "Your wall is still can be used sir, it ain't broke, I just made art" The kid tries to explain.
I think, without permission doesn't mean destroying.

“Art should comfort the disturbed and disturb the comfortable ” 

A sentence on a picture that I found in my Pinterest Interset Feed. A sentence that gives me a path to a question “Should it?”

In studying art, we don’t see the art just from its artwork. Not just the artwork. There are something outside the body of the artwork including the process before the artwork and after the artwork is done. The artist thinks about what will he do. Just like a novel, besides the intrinsic components there are extrinsic; such as what is happened in the artist’s environment, the background of the artist, and also the feeling of the artist.

The artist makes work from things he already has, either by sense or intuition. He thinks about how the artwork will be done. From its dimension, composition, and the other technical things. In addition, maybe the artist is going to think about it while he is "holding a brush".

Process before the artwork is not just a technical things, but also the reasons and the design of what may happen after the artwork is done.

Then, there will be a process after the artwork is done. The effect. The reaction of audiences or something. It’s going to be “Wow.. Amazing” or “Hmm.. Dangerous”. Wiji Thukul by his poems could “disturb” the government at that time. Now, he is gone, disappear. A film work about Betrayal of Indonesian Communist Party which was shown annually by the new order government could give a “brainwashing” to a lot of Indonesian people, planted in their mind across generation in case of giving perspective about Communism in Indonesia.

Either the reaction is successful like what the artist wished before or badly failed is depend on the process before designing the artwork. Perhaps the design put the artwork to the wrong audiences.

A thousand tagging of anarchy sign doesn’t mean a thing if it done without reasons, plan, and maybe solution from the artist. It just going to give an anger to shop owner because his rolling door was just vandalized by someone.

The meaning of that sentence, in my opinion, is not just artist disturb someone personally, someone with no sins who doesn’t know anything. Art for disturbing the comfortable, for me, it’s more suitable to the comfort of being improper and art may break it.

For example, a nation with people who comfort to be apathetic facing the reality that something wrong happens in their nation and something is threatening their future then art comes and disturbs them, make them realize to give a little bit of their attention for the nation. Or a “rat” that puts his comfort on the people’s misery could be disturbed or threatened by an artwork.

The process of doing artwork become important. Perhaps the artist had died before his artwork could give an impact just because of a worse strategy.

So, should it? It is depend on the artist, I guess 😝
Previous PostOlder Posts Home