Ангел - хранитель бездомных собак
- Вот, смотри, Боже - отчего они неприкаяные такие?
И отвечал Господь:
- Оттого они такие неприкаяные, что ты их всю дорогу за хвосты таскаешь.
- Так что, мне их не таскать теперь совсем за хвосты?
- А не таскай их за хвосты, чего ты их все таскаешь?
- А за что же их, Господи, таскать тогда?
- А ни за что их не таскай - брось и вся недолга.
- Так они разбегутся все, как я их хранить буду?
- А чего их хранить - пусть бегут себе с Богом куда хотят.
- А я тогда на что? Что я делать-то буду?
- А это я решать буду, чего делать тебе.
- Знаю, как ты, Господи, решаешь. Страшусь я решений твоих.
- А знаешь - так и помалкивай. Нечего разглашать тайны Господни.
- Так, что, Господи, бросать их, неприкаяных?
- Бросай - они убегут, а ты каяться за них будешь.
- За собак, за этих шелудивых - фуу!
- Тогда держи их в руцех своих вечно и кайся, кайся...
Ангел в сторону:
- Зачем я предстал с этими шелудивыми, кусачими пред лицем Его? Мог бы и в сторонке переждать.
Господь грозно:
- Я все слышу!
Ангел:
- Эх, связался на свою голову...
Господь:
- Вяжись - не вяжись, все предопределено уже предвечно.
- Ангел:
- Так что теперь до скончания веку мне так...
Господь:
- Да брось ты их, шелудивых, делом каким займись!
Ангел застывает безмолвно. Шелудивые разбегаются.
- Господь:
- А где собаки-то, почто не хранишь?
Ангел:
- Бегу уже, бегу, уже собираю их..
- Господь:
- Смотри у меня.
Ангел приоткрыл было, но вовремя захлопнул свое поддувало. Молча отходит от лица Его. За ближайшим облаком надолго замирает молча.
Свидетельство о публикации №119021709137
- Вот такие мы неудалые: и делаем что-то - плохо, и ничего не делаем - совсем плохо!
Juliet Pleming:
- I feel like you often post things to be contrary and shocking, but it's a blunt reaction. Yes, it's a reaction, but shock has been done to death in art, and there are more nuanced things that can be said about life rather than just being contrary for the sake of it.
Nathan Ketcham:
- Juliet Pleming I feel like people who characterize art as merely trying to be "contrary and shocking" are having a blunted, self-limiting, and often insincere response to the art. If you are shocked, fine. Ask yourself why you are shocked and keep looking to see if the art brings something more or in addition to that response. Unless you are looking at the dregs of popular culture or the most amateurish of amateur art, there's almost always something more. Shock, itself, is not an experience without nuance unless you turn your brain off and refuse to engage with whatever it is that has shocked you. If you turn your brain off to an experience or emotion - no matter what it may be - then the trigger for that emotion, as well as the emotion itself, will automatically appear to be "blunt" or lacking in nuance.
But rarely are the people who express this opinion about art actually shocked by what they see. Instead, they cynically assume the artist is merely, exclusively trying to shock or be contrary, but instead failing. This assumes that the artist and their intended audience is somehow less sophisticated than oneself. The artist apparently has no clue - or has put no consideration - into the average response of a cynical art consumer who thinks they've seen it all. That is really not the best way to approach art. It's dismissive. It's unreceptive. It's refusing to allow a relationship with the art before it can even begin.
To be blunt, I've never met a person with any real depth of understanding or appreciation of nuance in life or art say things like "that's just trying to be shocking," or "that's pretentious," about art. It's the equivalent of saying "too long, didn't read" in response to a social media post. That's on you. That's your unwillingness to sincerely engage based on whatever arbitrary conditions for engagement you've decided to accept as dogma.
And, finally, what exactly is shocking or contrary about the artwork pictured? It might be very loosely related or unrelated to Duchamp, but that's not really the same thing as shocking or contrary, is it?
Juliet Pleming:
- What the actual? Guardian angel! Looks more like a demonic torturer to me.
Yuri Izvekov:
- This is the guardian Angel of stray dogs who appeared before the Lord:
- Look, God, why are they so restless?
And the Lord answered:
- That's why they're so restless that you drag them by their tails all the way.
- So, I don't have to drag them by their tails at all now?
- And don't drag them by their tails, why are you dragging them all?
- And for what, for God's sake, should they be dragged then?
- And don't carry them for anything - drop them and it won't be long.
- So they will all run away, how will I keep them?
- And why keep them - let them run with God wherever they want.
- And then what am I for? What am I going to do?
- And it's up to me to decide what to do for you.
- I know how you decide, Lord. I am afraid of your decisions.
- You know, keep your mouth shut. There is nothing to divulge the secrets of the Lord.
- So, what, for God's sake, leave them, the restless?
- Drop it - they will run away, and you will repent for them.
- For the dogs, for these mangy ones - phew!
- Then keep them in your hands forever and repent, repent...
Angel aside:
- Why did I appear with these mangy, biting people in front of Him? He could have waited on the sidelines.
The Lord is terrible:
- I can hear everything!
Angel:
- Eh, I messed with my head...
Lord:
- Fit in, don't fit in, everything is predetermined from time immemorial.
- Angel:
- So now, until the end of my life, I'm so...
Lord:
- Come on, you mangy ones, do what you do!
- The Lord:
- And where are the dogs, why don't you keep them?
Angel:
- I'm already running, I'm already collecting them..
- The Lord:
- Look at me.
Juliet Pleming:
- Jury Izvekov thanks for your long response. I don't really understand what you say, but thank you. What I see in the picture is dogs being held up by their tails which anyone who has a sympathy and love for dogs would know is a extremely painful thing to do to a dog.
Deb French:
- Nathan Ketcham, Bravo reply! Agree, agree, agree!
Juliet Pleming:
- Nathan I do understand what you are saying and also I am aware of nuances. I don't have time or inclination to foster an intimate relationship with every piece of art I see on Facebook. There are many ways to experience art. You are also making assumptions about 'the type of people who view art' and have a view as to how art 'should be viewed' in a prescriptive way. I am free to have whatever relationship I choose with the art I see. That to me is a wonderful thing about art is the freedom of each person to express and interpret, and all views are valid including the one I expressed.
Juliet Pleming:
- Nathan Ketcham, or maybe you were just making a serving suggestion.
Nathan Ketcham:
- I truly am sorry if my response was too personal. I'm just very tired of hearing the "shock for shock's sake" commentary in general and may have gone too far in my criticism. I have no real interest in the OPs post and it is off topic, but your exact words here are so often used to thoughtlessly dismiss artists and their work - long before the internet privileged easy consumption of art - that they've become a kind of conservative, provincial (masked as culturally sophisticated) trope. I'm sorry to suggest that they do not express authentic feelings in your case. I really have no idea of your exact intentions or personal experience and shouldn't presume.
Juliet Pleming:
- Nathan Ketcham thanks Nathan, always interesting to have civilized discussion/debate . Good food for thought, and also on reflection I'll admit I was in a bit of a knee jerk mood at the time.
Юрий Извеков Улан-Удэ 02.06.2024 11:19 Заявить о нарушении