#authorisms

they can be very important to the story Ya Know. most of the time im having a character confront some kind of mental block or real life issue in a dream. dreams communicate fears. dreams communicate mounting pressure- dreams can BE that mounting pressure. dreams can also communicate acceptance. dreams can be characters in and of themselves!! but dreams have to consistently represent something. i would suggest like. maintaining one or two different meanings for dreams but this generally goes for ALL symbols. telling a story is inherently enforcing some kind of narrative. joan didion's belief was that writing was a hostile act, describing it almost as if it was violating the reader. to be specific, she said:

In many ways writing is the act of saying I, of imposing oneself upon other people, of saying listen to me, see it my way, change your mind. It's an aggressive, even a hostile act. You can disguise its qualifiers and tentative subjunctives, with ellipses and evasions —with the whole manner of intimating rather than claiming, of alluding rather than stating—but there's no getting around the fact that setting words on paper is the tactic of a secret bully, an invasion, an imposition of the writer's sensibility on the reader's most private space.

do i necessarily completely agree with joan didion? No. but i do think she was getting at something and it was something very important about writing. when you are telling a story, whether it be fiction or non-fiction, there is some underlying narrative going on there. there will always be some hidden meaning because people dont walk around without them. even the nihilists have a hidden meaning they want to share with you: there is NO meaning. writing is a philosophical experience and a deeply self-analytical one, which didion also believed was part of the reason why she wrote if not the sole reason she was a writer. she described it like she didn't know what she was thinking until she wrote it down. she didn't know what was happening with her mental state until she wrote it down. i dont believe she did that expressly to impose a narrative upon a reader, to persuade them necessarily, but YES there is a part of every writer that wants to make you see it OUR way.

but this feeling is not specific to authors. other forms of art find themselves trying to make you see what they see, whether it be simply through their own memories of an event or a scene, or quite literally an artists interpretation of politics and history. an artist trying to convey to you what an event did to them through their medium of choice. a piece i love so much is félix gonzález-torres' 175 pound piles of candy that guests are encouraged to take from, forcing them to participate in the art piece. not only do you get to view it, but to get the full experience, you must participate and pick up a candy and eat from it, the representation of félix's and his lover's body, both taken away by aids. the horror of it is forced on you and that visceral emotional reaction feels like an invader suddenly entering your body. everything about it hits you like a freight train while you're eating a cellophane-wrapped candy. what can you get from that? what exactly can you interpret from it? what thought does the author have? can you feel it being forced on you?

i mentioned this before in a note but i said that at the time, i was following the oscar wilde method of writing, which was to write without communicating a moral to the audience. while i still identify with this- in no way am i trying to teach you some kind of lesson when you read nameless- there is a mix here that i think is important when talking about what you choose to write and what you choose to symbolise. dreams are not just a gateway into a character's mind but YOUR mind and what you associate with certain things. writing is displaying art and because of that, people can interpret your art in any way they want and there is no wrong way to view it in my personal opinion. even if you put it out there with a vision and a goal, people can choose to make it personal to themselves and there is NOTHING you can do about that. this is part of the medium. you dont control how people interpret it if they feel deeply about it.

a good example of that is sun yuan and peng yu's "can't help myself." you probably already know about it: a machine that sweeps up liquid that looks like blood. sun yuan and peng yu intended for this to be a more political piece, trying to evoke imagery of war, surveillance, and land disputes. these concepts were not just randomly chosen for a random exhibition; the guggenheim museum specifically sought out yuan and yu for the "tales of our time" exhibition, which had a focus on locations and geography. where the artists lived, their idea of utopia, an interpretation of modern borders. even the title was a play on lu xun's book "old tales retold," which, as it says on the tin, retold old tales but in a way that critiqued society and highlighted issues specific to the era. so, when "can't help myself" was created, it was an interpretation of the state of border politics.

looking at it with this perspective, the "blood" the machine cleans up leaves red streaks across the floor as the only evidence it was ever there. the machine gets little breaks and dances and interacts with the audience like a nation's figurehead on tour, waving to citizens in the audience before immediately returning to the bloodshed. and when the blood gets too much, they dont have as much time to appease the crowd or to do a little dance or wave. theres too much to mop up, and then the blood becomes the centrepiece. no matter how much the robot sweeps up, there is always more. and the machine sweeps up blood until it cant anymore, and then the blood is left to sit for everyone to see. its the inevitable end of empires. it is what war will do to a nation. when the power struggle that leads to wars that leads to death en masse become too much, people will be unable to ignore the bloodshed and there is no amount of dancing or waving a nation can do to save them from their demise. the machine lays down and dies. the empire falls.

or...or its exemplary of a country trying to control immigration. it pulls the blood back in, but there are streaks left of it on the floor- people still get out and they never come back. blood gets spattered on the walls and is, therefore, unable to be swept back up. what is a nation without its people? and that is why borders and the inherent function of the machine is important. the machine is not leaking the fluid; the fluid has been poured into the space and the machine sweeps it into an arbitrary border. when it flows outside that border, its sensors go off and drag the fluid back in. that brings in the idea of mass surveillance. bringing those who step out of line back in. its an orwellian image of a machine dancing and waving to the audience, putting on a jovial performance, before punishing its subject for stepping out of its contrived boundary in front of its company.

the art piece briefly fell out of public knowledge before being discovered again through what little video we have of it while it was being shown. and some of the people who found it were not given the context of the guggenheim exhibit, nor did they get to view it during the time it was in action. some were not residents of china, yuan and yu's home country and the area-specific politics "can't help myself" was reflecting on. because of these holes in knowledge, people began to interpret it as a rat race sort of commentary. the fluid representing money, or the machine's life force, or joy flowing out of the machine and trying to be gathered back up by this anthropromorphised version that was created. it dances and waves and puts on a brave face, all while fighting to maintain these important things. some people interpretted it as people pleasing, where the machine would dance and then go right back to struggling to stay alive, perhaps struggling with depression or other kinds of mental illness. it would wave to make people happy and interact with the audience, all while bleeding out on the floor. people felt for it and identified with it.

and while you could argue these interpretations are "tainted" because they don't know what the piece is actually about, it doesn't make any other interpretation any better. in fact, my interpretations of "can't help myself"- even with the assistance of context from the guggenheim website or my limited knowledge on chinese policy and history or the assistance of the artists themselves, articles from people that saw it in person, what few translated articles i could stumble across in my early search- is tainted by the fact that i have only ever lived in the west. i don't truly know what chinese immigration policy looks like or what the chinese government is telling its citizens, what narrative is trying to be pushed. i only know what narrative my country is pushing. i am assuming that, maybe, the chinese government is saying the same things as the west, but i don't truly know and i won't know until i meet someone who lives or lived there, but i haven't. as logical as my interpretation is, there are likely holes because of my view on the government which has been shaped by living where i do, just as this piece is shaped by sun yuan and peng yu living in china.

and even if they don't know the context, that doesn't make their interpretations any less evocative. there is something to be said about the performance the machine puts on because its an important part of the piece. there's something to be said about how you are an observer peering into a glass box at the spectacle that is happening. you can stand there and have blood flung at you because of the work the machine is putting into maintaining its borders. there is something to be said about the way the machine appears to be bleeding, even if that's not what's actually happening. these are amazing things to think about and the fact that people think about it at all is amazing! i think thats fucking beautiful!!

and you want to know why that's so amazing? because art like this is MEANT to be provacative. it's MEANT to spark a reaction. it could be reactions in the political sense, like inspiring people to be activists or to question their governments and representatives, or reactions in the emotional sense, like fear or intrigue or sadness. "can't help myself" is poking at you and begging for a reaction. the machine dances and waves and tries to entertain you between sweeps as if it's begging for you to look at it, to analyse it, to figure out what it's doing and why it's doing it, and why you are trapped behind the glass, stuck watching it. regarding "can't help myself," sun yuan told artsy, "we see how the robot and the liquid finish by torturing each other."

with this, we return to didion and her belief that writing was a hostile act. sun yuan and peng yu went into this project hoping to communicate a strong political message that was essential to the museum that commissioned them. the museum wanted the view they could provide. from the start, this is about politics and geography and borders and immigration- so how did people end up seeing themselves in that machine? its a matter of the artists releasing the ability to maintain context. even with people learning the context of the piece, there are still those that identify with it because their interpretation means so much to them. this piece has a life of its own outside of what the artists intended for it and this inevitably happens to every piece of art. those who care about it will interpret it in a way that relates to them. if they are politically minded, they might interpret it in a political way, and for those who aren't, the piece becomes deeply emotional.