Bathroom Art

i just read an article in the sf chronicle about "visual politics." the writer mentioned something about the impotency of art to change minds. then in the last part, the writer suggested a different criteria which i think wasn't really different because a lot of artists have been doing it before. he said: 'criterion of effective political art: work that prizes the play of the mind above ideology. even above solidarity.'

if art is impotent, why bother to be poetic? would i bother to be poetic for the critics just to be accepted to the mainstream? or do i need to be poetic because i know art is impotent? i remember watching the war boys (before iraq 2) marching in the UN beside 'guernica' without even noticing the painting. picasso’s guernica is for display only. there's no other meaning to it. maybe it's good for anybody's bathroom beside anybody's shit.

my friend england hidalgo and i thought about the art impotency thing and we concluded to take poetry off of art. we'll just say what we want. sabihin na natin na puki ng ina nyo mga gago. wala nang paliguy-ligoy pa. we're just wasting our time being poetic. what for and for whom? why waste my time for somebody to hang my art in their bathrooms beside their shit?

hay buhay.




i met ninang barb on christmas eve. she gave miro 3 books for christmas. thanks ninang barb! swerte nitong si miro at magiging wide reader. photo courtesy of my bey.