Do we REALLY need corners? by artnoise

Barsch Planetarium. Photo Credit ©CC

Barsch Planetarium. Photo Credit ©CC

Think of observing around, or better, observe first and think after. The walls surround us silently and dominantly. It's all white. What if it was all black? Would you see the corners in that case?  If you don't see the corners, would you need them?

How is the space that surround us relevant for judging art? Colours are important, shapes are important, especially in a gallery or an artistic environment. But corners? What about those annoying, sharp tiny, useless stripes of hollow wall? Our full range of senses will be stuck in there, nobody will notice and, after the exhibition, we will forget them and won't be miss them.

Think of a rounded, white if you like, exhibition room. Everything would be smoothly following the flux. The context, the concept, the meaning, the visitors. No panic, no senses stuck in the corners. Fluctuant walls will be the future.

Thinking of future and past art movements, the main concept of cubism, for instance, could be turn into a kind of 'spherism' where corners will disappear and, like the planet earth on an atlas, the sphere will be spread out like an orange with all its segments.

But the future is now, in some way, and the contemporary art is still something happened in the past. Time and space are upside down in a confused, empirical and inconceivable view. The next future of art galleries will be a narrative breakup, a misbehaviour, a chaos.

Buildings: our future in a dystopian cage by artnoise

We often think how things are structured, right? Looking around us, we notice buildings, rose before our eyes in a couple of months (that actually seems a couple of days) unaware that there is an actual structure behind them, beneath them. Exactly like our culture, our education, our thoughts. We have been build up following a structure. The structured architecture of our lives.

But what are buildings made for? In a conceptual matter of fact, they're made for protecting us, giving us a shelter, a place, a space. Is it too presumptuous to say that buildings are an architectural show-off?  There's nothing behind, no concept, no context, no make-our-lives-better sort of thing. They're just a competition between space - spare space - and appearence. May I disagree on this? Even buildings, like works of art, have a soul, a disgraceful soul sometimes but still a soul.

Buildings are like trees: solid and majestic structures; upright, untouchable, apparently unaware of what's going on around them.  Or are they nothing but cages?

Buildings are the trees of the future. In these days, human being is aiming to build taller and taller, higher and higher to satisfy something we cannot explain. I don't even know what are the reasons of all this constructing. But I am still pretty sure that one time, long time ago, buildings had a soul.