Futuronomy of Art

Art is in Eurocentric culture conceived of as a egocentric commercial endeavor of self-expression whereby the artist expresses himself, meaning that this is very similar to how premarital female gender is socially constructed in the same Eurocentric culture. Due to primping being practiced mostly by females rather than by males is primping in society at large considered as a set of skills rather than properly as a form of art.


What if instead art were about the other rather than oneself? What if art was dialogic and interpersonal rather than first introjective and subsequently projective? What it art was teleological rather than hermeneutic? What does it then mean for art to be teleological, ought art not be a purpose in and of itself rather than a tool for something else?

Artists often complain about others simply not being interested in paying for artistic creations and they should simply ask why this is so? First there is far more supply than demand so artists effectively outcompete each other in therefore dumping prices in the market. Second there is the bizarre notion of endlessly seeking to produce products that others are not interested in buying and then complain about others not wanting to pay for products that lack commercial appeal.

We need thus consider how art may become responsible and helpful rather than redundant and carno-phallogocentric. What is the meaning of art and ought art generally have a uniform meaning? In most traditional societies is being an artist not a profession from which one makes a living but rather a social role in addition to making a living. But what if art could actually become a means of realistically making a living?

We need therefore move from the conception of art being sort of a visual hermeneutics of the so called “artist” into art becoming dialogic and performative in the sense as integrated into social practice and not merely some para-social practice of self-centered epistemology.

Elective sociofluidity offers the possibility of turning social roles generally (age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality) etc. into dynamically developing performance art everywhere. What if we were all to turn our lives into performance art projects? How would that alter our socially constructed self-experiences? Secular (Para-Christian) culture turned pleasure into an obligation in the name of liberation from so called “religion”, an obviously thinly veiled reference to performative but not actual dissociation from Christianity.

Pleasure thus turns into a self-centered pursuit of self-centered “happiness” as socially constructed as an expectation of becoming independent of external constraints with the result being the individual person suffering from feeling helpless in not being able to liberate herself from her internal constraints which she anyway does not understand. She neither understands why those internal constraints exist, nor why it is so immensely difficult for her to liberate herself from those involuntary psychological constraints.

At the root of this is an essentialist psychology where we believe ourselves to be etched in stone with the consequence of Western humans leading their lives as if burial monuments of their own dreams. While there is hereditary basis to psychometric traits are these also socially constructed to varying degrees.

Environmental therapy is a technique in urban intelligence training as designed to socially reconstruct the trainee. Urban intelligence training typically involves the trainee experiencing encounters with other trainees as tasked with varying missions in city environments. Environmental therapy as an element of intelligence training involves reconstructing the trainee by means of social construction.

This simply means that persons change as society changes. What may seem unchanging traits in ourselves is often to varying degree simply collective structures which in Foucault’s terminology are inscribed on our skin while we ourselves treat these unwanted behaviors of ours as tattoos that we desperately yet unsuccessfully seek to wash away and then becoming immensely frustrated and permanently so due to the impossibility of washing away a tattoo.

Yet, when collective structures change do many of these purportedly “individual traits” change as well. We thus so often in compulsorily obsessive Para-Christian hedonism collectively/discursively individualize collective social structures which we in Para-Christian manner blame ourselves for the purpose of structurally self-inflicting immense permanent emotional suffering.

How then deal with this? We could certainly engage in mass environmental therapy outside of the intelligence world and we all need social behavioral training (SBT) in helping supplanting unethical and generally unhelpful behaviors and reactions of ours with more ethical and helpful ones.

But could we also do this individually? Is there a possibility of individually breaking out of the matrix of collective social construction? Yes we can do that by practicing sociofluidity in deliberately re-performing ourselves literally everywhere. By reperforming ourselves do we also change because behaviors of ours are often typically not reducible to some innate trait but rather to essentialist structural discourse which pre-determine individually unwanted collective, structural behavior. We thus misconceive of reactional/behavioral change as essential rather than performative indeed.

Art thus needs become reintegrated with societal practices. The term culture interestingly has two meanings, the first meaning refers to art while the second meaning refers to society and so the two need become integrated by means of not only sociofluidity but also conceptual innovation, social innovation and technological innovation.

What is known as “culture” is typically conceived of in multiculturalist discourse as something essential and fundamental and usually not something that needs be questioned and critiqued as indeed the previously hegemonic conception of race. Yet is this not also what we do when we individually in Para-Christian style individually blame ourselves for collectivizing structural behavior, discourse and social control? While in no way denying that cultural diversity and inter-cultural respect is important should we question the uncritically favorable conception of culture much like we have already questioned the previously uncritically conception of so called “race”. Is not the hegemonic notion of “culture” just as the previously hegemonic conception of “race” simply structural oppression? Again being critical of culture does not imply seeking cultural uniformity or being culturally insensitive but the problem is rather that we put culture (both art and society) on a pedestal for objectifying admiration as a psychologically externalized object of hermeneutic interpretation as opposed to an interactive experience everywhere.

This is about “secular” (i.e. Para-Christian) culture seeking ersatz church experiences for the ostensibly “replaced” Christianity much like Christian supersessionism sought to “replace” Judaism and where the carno-phallogocentric conception of its famous pharisaic rabbi is not only collectivized as social structure but also collectively individualized in the sense that we systematically misconceive of collective structures as individual traits indeed.

Art as the practice of culture thus needs reengage with society in leaving the commercial/professional pedestal for subversively transformative re-engagement with society in undoing culture (a term which includes structural oppression) as we know it.

The art of social engineering obviously needs be performed responsibly as responsibleness ought never be taken for granted. Social engineering hence ought not as traditionally be conceived of as a mere social process of projective ideals but rather one of creatively flexible innovation.

Secular (i.e. Para-Christian) art is similar to Christianity in being socially constructed as elite intellectual culture as secluded from societal culture as devotional ostensibly individual, but actually a collective process of performative intellectual veneration.

The ethico-political task therefore is to reintegrate art with other cultural expressions, including subversively transforming shibboleths of oppression/discrimination such as age, ethnicity, gender, sexuality etc. from collectivized individual iteration into everyday performance art. However this also means re-integrating art with other forms of documenting expression such as journalism, innovation, pornography and politics much as art has increasingly infused video commercials. This does not only mean that almost every human can become an artist but furthermore that virtually everyone needs become one.

This means infusing society with the performatively “sacralizing” spirit of art everywhere. Art as the experience of external presence needs become de-objectified and inter-personalized so that we will reconceive of the present as constructing the future in the sense of life being performative of the future rather than as ostensibly constitutive of an imaginary Para-Christian carno-phallogocentric essence of being.

The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project

Screenshot 2017-12-01 at 23.30.32