nakamura hiro’s blog

Written by nakamura hiro


  Triennale seems to mean international art exhibition. The original idea is “once every three years” in Italian, so to put it simply, the exhibition is held once every few years.
Recently, I often hear the words Triennale and Expression in the news. Aside from the content of the turmoil that triggered it, what is an exhibition? For me, when I heard it was an exhibition, it reminded me of Mussorgsky's suite. That melody begins to sound in my head.
 Just a long time ago, when I went to see paintings and works of art, I felt that it was an exhibition. According to Ojibayashi, there is an exhibition that shows many artworks and productions side by side. Even now, it is called “Goch Exhibition” or “Picasso Exhibition”, but it may be an abbreviation for Van Gogh Exhibition or Picasso Exhibition.
 So, this Aichi Triennale riot is a riot at the “Aichi, a party where many people can see internationally accepted works of art and production”.
 Then, whether the original exhibit that caused the riot is an art work is one of the issues. In this case, if the issues of freedom of expression and censorship are deliberately removed, if this exhibition is not a work of art, it will be just a “production”. In other words, it is something special.
 And if we talk about the turmoil itself from a slightly different point of view, it is common to show it to many people, whether it is a work of art or something special. In other words, this “show” is the keyword.
 There is a charge for this Triennale. Pay money and go see. Actually, the talk will change between heaven and earth for free and paid.
 I don't think paying and watching for free should be the same. If that work is displayed on the street for free, people may see it even if they don't want to see it. Same as hate speech you don't want to hear. Naturally, even if it is freedom of expression, there are restrictions on public places. Even expression is not unrestricted or unlimited. Even a naked photo of a man who was OK at a museum is probably not good for a rooftop advertisement. Because it can be viewed for free on TV, ethics and compliance issues are required for the program content. That's because it can naturally get into your eyes.
 However, as is the case with the Triennale this time, at least paying for entry has a subjective willingness to see and feel the exhibits directly. It's the same as paying for money at a movie theater.
 I don't know what is on display here or what it is. It's just a vague idea that art (production) will be on display. You can't understand without looking inside. I went to see it because I don't know.
 Even in a movie, there may be many SEX scenes, violence scenes, and cruel depictions that I never wanted to see when I actually went to see them. However, it was the result of sitting on the seat with the intention to pay to see the work. I didn't really want to see it. Just remembering makes me feel cold. It's just one of the audience's impressions.
 Most people go to the exhibition. There is a purpose to satisfy intellectual curiosity and deepen education. But each person. So of course there are impressions of each. It's uncomfortable. I can't stand to see it. It's an insult. Not a work of art. Such a thing is only one impression.
 There are no constitution, no discrimination issues, and no international issues. It's just an impression of seeing the exhibits. Same as Yahoo! Just because it is a triennale, there is no inevitability that the works in the exhibition must be artistic and noble. Because it ’s just something special.
On the other hand, nobody wants to pay to see what is not thoughtful or artistic, like a road sign, under public restrictions.
Again, if you compare it to a movie, it's like seeing a movie and complaining to the movie theater that you're showing because you don't agree with the idea. The movie theater is only showing because people come and pay to watch it. Since it is held using taxes, it does not matter what local governments do.
 A long time ago, when I was a middle school student in the middle of compulsory education, a horror-loving teacher showed me a nightmare in Elm Street during art time.
 The students watched screaming. Of course, there were students who left on the way.    However, the teacher did not stop the screening until the end. And after everything is over,
 “Most of the students probably didn't want to see it anymore. Why did they think so?   And conversely, the students who wanted to see more had the ability to think naturally. It was art. "
 I still think that this teacher was still saying. And I think the same about this uproar. Thanks to that, I hate horror movies.

see you.