
Kiana Khansmith

No title available

JBB: An Artblog!
he wasn't even looking at me and he found me
Stranger Things
Aqua Utopia|海の底で記憶を紡ぐ
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Three Goblin Art
d e v o n

shark vs the universe
Today's Document

roma★

#extradirty
sheepfilms
Not today Justin
will byers stan first human second
tumblr dot com
Cosmic Funnies

Janaina Medeiros
$LAYYYTER
seen from Malaysia
seen from Norway

seen from United Kingdom
seen from Argentina

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Singapore
seen from Netherlands

seen from Saudi Arabia

seen from Singapore

seen from Malaysia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Germany
seen from Hong Kong SAR China
seen from Norway

seen from Türkiye

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from China
@justuju
emily dickinson
I sometimes think that if love didn’t exist, what would people talk about otherwise? Love is one of the strongest subjective feelings that exists. Everyone’s always known that - it's why in books, in plays and tragedies, you have love as the driving force. You must take an interest in all that appears as the great passions of humanity - which means the big commitments of human subjects which, for whatever reason, go beyond man’s immediate concerns. It’s in these great passions that mankind creates its future, and it’s there that it can get out of its present state and create something new. So, it’s something that deserves to ask that simple question: where are we today with this question of love? Today, it’s necessary to defend love. Love is the most powerful way known to humanity to have an intimate relationship with another. It places you in a state of dependence on another. Which is something that is fundamentally against modern individualism. If the sole motivation for human action is to satisfy one’s wishes and interests, which is after all the dominant idea of the modern world. If that is humanity, then love can indeed be seen as a danger. We should be wary of love, and in particular, what happens on dating sites, where we try to guarantee a romantic encounter in advance by ensuring that anyone you meet is just like you; they have the same tastes, the same wishes and the same determination. I think that goes against the very definition of love. Because it means there’s no element of adventure, no risks are taken - mutual satisfaction has to be guaranteed, like some kind of business contract - and that I think is a serious threat to love. You need to defend love as a real, risky adventure against this individualistic, even egotistical vision. Because the truth is that love can’t be reduced to individualistic egoism. Love is, in a way, a lesson in courage. In arranged marriages there is no risk. The same with dating sites. You try to avoid risk. Avoiding risk by calculating how to maximise a relationship with another. I think that all creation, all truth with any real significance, is always linked to an event. Anything else is just a normal consequence of the everyday world. It’s neither a creation nor an invention, just a continuation. What does it mean to start something? If you want to consider something beginning, you have to consider there is an element of chance. If there isn’t chance involved, then it’s not a start because it’s something that already exists and is pre-determined. So when I focus on risk, I focus on the fact that love, as a creation, as an invention, is closely linked to a meeting. A meeting which is risky. And can be a meeting with people from completely different worlds. It’s precisely because of the role that chance plays that love can have a creative dimension that is really interesting and universal. True love, intense love, makes possible what was previously impossible. The modern individualist world is a world which presents humanity as a collection of single entities. Each is 'one'. In its purest sense love is this passage from one to two in the experience of life itself. Love creates a perspective and an existence in the world which is not from the point of view of 'one' because it is the perspective of 'two'. The passing from one to two is a revolution. A great revolution. It’s as if we are putting things in perspective, as if suddenly the world has an extra dimension. And it’s an absolutely fundamental experience because it shows us, makes us realise, that the truth of the world is in fact sustained by the multitudes, not by the atom that is you personally. Many people give up love. People don’t understand clearly enough that love is a creation. A modern tendency, when there’s an obstacle is to let go and move on to something else. If we settle on the idea that as soon as something is hard we have to give it up, we will settle for an uninteresting life. I don’t deny the existence of love’s sadness. Abandonment or disappointment can be terrible emotions. But if, because of this pain, you renounce love, then you reject the greatest experience of another that you can have in your existence. 'All that is true is rare and difficult' Unfortunately, that is true.
French philosopher Alain Badiou on love
ring set by oxbow designs
Illness is the night-side of life, a more onerous citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual citizenship, in the kingdom of the well and in the kingdom of the sick. Although we all prefer to use only the good passport, sooner or later each of us is obliged, at least for a spell, to identify ourselves as citizens of that other place.
Illness as Metaphor - Susan Sontag
They smell your mouth To find out if you have told someone: I love you! They smell your heart! Such a strange time it is, my dear; And they punish Love At thoroughfares By flogging. We must hide our Love in dark closets. In this crooked dead end of a bitter cold They keep their fire alive By burning our songs and poems; Do not place your life in peril by your thoughts! Such a strange time it is, my dear! He who knocks on your door in the middle of the night, His mission is to break your Lamp! We must hide our Lights in dark closets! Behold! butchers are on guard at thoroughfares With their bloodstained cleavers and chopping-boards; Such a strange time it is, my dear! They cut off the smiles from lips, and the songs from throats! We must hide our Emotions in dark closets! They barbecue canaries On a fire of jasmines and lilacs! Such a strange time it is, my dear! Intoxicated by victory, Satan is enjoying a feast at our mourning table! We must hide our God in dark closets!
In this dead-end | Ahmad Shamlou (July 1979)
for his mother, Mourid Barghouti
the last line, I Saw Ramallah, Mourid Barghouti
أنا العاشِقُ السيءَ الحَظ لا أستَطيعَ الذَهَـابَ اليكـِ ولا أستَطَيعَ الرُجوعَ إليّ I am the unlucky lover I cannot give myself to you And I cannot go back to myself
Mahmoud Darwish
The birds have vanished into the sky, and now the last cloud drains away. We sit together, the mountain and me, until only the mountain remains.
Li Po
The same rubble that is the destroyed Palestinian home is both memory and resistance when flung in the face of the occupier, the colonizer.
In this sense, whenever we are engaged in radical emancipatory politics, we should never forget, as Walter Benjamin put it almost a century ago, that every revolution, if it is an authentic revolution, is not only directed towards the future but it redeems also the past failed revolutions. All the ghosts as it were; the living dead of the past revolution, which are roaming around, unsatisfied, will finally find their home in the new freedom.
Zizek summarizing Walter Benjamin (via stay-human)
Palm Trees and the Mountain in Nubia, Hussein Bikar, 1978
Our daily victims are: between two and eight martyrs, ten wounded, twenty homes, fifty olive trees, and the structural destruction of the ode, the play and the unfinished painting.
Mahmoud Darwish, State of Siege
Today I saw Riz Ahmed’s “The Long Goodbye” for the first time.
Watching it, something I’ve been holding back for days, seeing the outrageous cruelty in Karachi and Jerusalem, burst forth. Something visceral about the destruction of homes. Some unwritten sacred thing that I hold dear undergoing the ugliest and most vile violation.
I feel it physically in my body; cold and sick and feverish all at the same time. I feel as though I don’t have the barrier of my own skin against the horror of the world. Something about “bare life” is echoing in my mind on repeat, an understanding of a visceral vulnerability that I have never been able to articulate.
For weeks at work we’ve been talking about experiential filmmaking. A film that elicits a physiological emotive response, beyond the realm of cerebral understanding and misunderstanding. I’ve been thinking about it a lot. I want to make art that unsettles. I want to make art that sits in your bones. I felt this film in my gut, in the back of my throat, at the edge of my skin.
This is what art that confronts does; it yanks you out of your skin.
And so here I am, thinking about Palestine again.
With Palestine I have never been able to wrap my head around the sheer undeniable injustice of it. The brazen, blatant, beghairati of the zionist project. How can a family of otherwise ordinary people steal a home. How can one enter a space populated with pictures, clothes that carry the scent of skin, food still warm on the table - and just occupy it? Who could live in a home with ghosts like these. I want to ask - do they not haunt you? Do you hear the singing when you try to sleep? Listen closely, it is a song of return - it is only ever the song of return.
I used to think about the zionist narrative of abandonment. As hollow as it is, that amounted to a justification through which one could delude oneself if so inclined. But what new hell is this? To look human beings in the face, to pull them out of their homes with your own hands, to see their resisting, protesting, unrelenting humanity up close - how does one face that and continue? I imagine the answer lies in a loss, the inability to recognize what one does not have.
There are so many painful parts to this story.
Palestinians who have to foot the bill of the demolitions of their own homes. Palestinians and humans of conscience who put their own bodies in between bulldozers and buildings to no avail. Palestinians, standing on Palestinian land, labelled “present absentees.” How can a human being be both present and absent? This is the magic trick bestowed upon Palestinians by Israel. People who are and not simultaneously. People who do not exist but exist enough to be a problem, enough to need to be eradicated. How does a person, standing there in flesh and bone, in the entirety of their corporeal humanness, prove the fact of their material existence? Indignity upon absurd indignity. The facts of the occupation constitute such gross, absurd injustices that nothing written or said can contain them.
I do not want to speak or write, I want to grab you and shake you because look, look - there is nothing here that requires explaining. Do you not have eyes that see? Do you not feel, in your very bones, right from wrong?
This is why words fail me now.
I was twelve (?) thirteen (?) when I started to learn the history of Palestine. It was inconceivable to me that such blatant injustice could go on. Inconceivable to a child that any human being with a beating heart would not just see the naked truth of what was happening. But as the years go by, the abuses continue. They grow, mutate, into new unrecognizable horrors. The magnitude of it shrinks one into silence, into hopelessness.
And yet. That is not an option. Even now, when we all know what is happening, corporate overlords that govern the entire domain of online life delete Palestinian after Palestinian–delete Palestine–off the Internet. One must speak. This is a project of disappearance. Since the very beginning, it has always been a project of disappearance.
“They do not exist.” “A land without a people for a people without a land.” “The old will die and the young will forget.”
That last one comes from the first Israeli prime minister, consolidator of zionist terrorist forces, architect of ethnic cleansing, Ben-Gurion, in 1948.
And yet, over 70 years later, they exist. They remember.
The same rubble that is the destroyed Palestinian home is both memory and resistance when flung in the face of the colonizer, the occupier. What is the name for the one who commits genocide? We have named the acts: massacre, ethnic cleansing, genocide - what is the name of the one who commits them? I want to name them for what they are. To name a thing for what it is, so that it cannot be obfuscated, so that it may be confronted, seems to me incredibly important in a narrative full of cowardly lies. The act does not occur without the actors - why don’t we have a name for the perpetrators of the worst horrors that humanity has ever seen? I could not find a word in English but, apparently, the French have one. To name those responsible for massacres in Rwanda: génocidaire. Telling in some ways, the English refuse to name what they do, the French, in their tradition of delusion, believe they are not involved.
There are other zionist delusions as well. They forget about us. The other wretched of the earth, the other colonized peoples of the world. They forget that we remember too. As long as the memory of colonization persists, zionism will not win. As long as the colonized resist, zionism can not win. The settler colonial state of Israel operates under the impression that the enemy is Palestine, they fail to understand the enemy is every last person with a zinda zameer still breathing on the face of this earth.
I have a lot of anger today. I have a lot of pain. How dare you look into a Palestinian mother’s face, after you’ve dragged her out of her home, and raise a single, miserable finger against her. How dare you step one filthy boot inside al-Aqsa. The wretched of the earth do not disappear this easy. There will always be a reckoning. Whether God’s or Benjamin’s, whether karma or the peoples’ righteous revolutionary anger, there will always be judgement day – it will be a mirror, and you will tremble when you see your face in it.
The definition of man as a being that works should be changed to that of a being that desires.
from The Other Mexico by Octavio Paz