|
arrogant treatise
|
|
if only life were perfect, then people would be happy ...yeah, right. well, it's far more complex than that. you see, no one has proven that things are best if perfect, that people should always be happy, or that it is good to be at peace. in fact no one really knows what the hell these words mean: perfect, happy, peace, best, good. thusfar, the definitions have been opinions. meanwhile, it has become the standard practice of each generation to strive for these elusive concepts convinced that they have them defined, each person struggling to go to these destinations as if these places are actually there. in the process, since people are both selfish creatures and social beasts, everyone (faults, fears, prejudices, motives and all) is perpetually gathering and then arguing amongst themselves about where they all ought to be going, all the while they are not getting there. when the arguing gets very organized, its either called politics (that's when it appears civilized) or its called revolution (that's when things are as out of hand as they look). and when people get killed, well, then its a war. ...here thus is found eristikös. now, we here do not actually know more than anyone else. but, of course, we, too, are convinced we know what is right, best and good. and like everyone else, we gravitate to others and argue. we have noticed, however, that the projects we represent tend to disquiet and discomfort. that's what happens when an opinion is terribly uncommon or uncommonly expressed, it is more than an opinion; it becomes controversy. but so fucking what--it's still an opinion, and we're entitled to it just the same as the next guy...
responsibility & conscience freedom is a tricky thing. if you have a conscience, it is impossible to be totally free; one can only be free within reason. you see, in order for everyone to be free, you can do whatever you want...just so long as others are not hurt. when anyone is harmed, their rights are infringed, and hence, their freedom usurped. not forgetting that pain is relative and that what goes around could possibly come around, it all boils down to this vague notion: we are each responsible for giving up a little freedom to ensure that in general everyone gains overall freedom. okay, so here's the deal...all this shit we are about to present to you--these are just ideas, nothing more. unlike electric current, when you touch them, they will let you go. they are more like tools or weapons: in and of themselves, they do not incite riots, create objects, damage property or kill themselves and others; the people who wield them do that. no one should be forced to live by these or any other ideas. like a meal or a drug, you should (and ultimately do) choose to ingest them to discover how they taste and how they effect you. and like a pair of shoes, you choose how often--if ever-- to wear them again. now, eristikös has no right to impose anything on you-- that includes offering you something unsuspectingly--so we are warning you right now. but if you proceed anyways--well, we also understand that it is difficult to always prevent being exposed to things before we discover we did not want to experience them. thus, if despite our warning, this experience causes you any harm, our conscience dictates that we apologize. beyond that, we bear no other debt or responsibility. once you are exposed, if you like, explore. and if not, then walk away. but whatever you do, you are solely responsible for your actions... and remember, its a free country so if you do not approve, you have no right to withhold others...
bottomline the starving artist can only starve for so long before we read about his unfortunate demise in the obituaries. the artist must somehow feed his body and his art...and often the matter of staying alive is not pretty. now, the artist could reject the trappings of industrialization and technology. he could decide to separate himself from society, become entirely self-sufficient, become simple, live in the wilderness: it's very romantic and it's very possible...but it would hardly further the cause of art. after all, one man has but two hands and a finite lifetime. one man knows only what he sees and imagines based on that knowledge-- on the other hand, the artist could know what other men's eyes have seen, could borrow their hands, could push the borders of human imagination and comprehension, could make the most of his short life. he could succumb to the wonders and ugliness of the modern civilization. he could agree to play the game. eristikös walks a fine line between noble aspiration and this nasty business of survival. we're not looking to become millionaires, we're just trying to keep this damn thing afloat (and maybe score a little bread to go with our water). so, here's the bottomline. feed us and we produce; starve us and we perish. if we suck, good riddance...but if we don't, not only do we die but your soul dies with us too...
eristikös launched online in April 1996
|