Skip to content

making the real unreal in realisation?

It seems like there is a certain cultivation, or is it a drive(?), that seems to be implicitly acceptable by many or a sizable amount of people that might use more full stops in their lines, or might even place commas in the correct places, and probably might even write like this line is doe – however, they might also imagine that imagination isn’t in itself a real or a “viable” reality because the process “requires” a dichotomic perception that pits the having the imagination as in an opposite and needing of – being “realised” – as in a sort of realisation process that is being called for by the imagination and is, in my view being imagined itself, as in adding a new kind of imagination rather than being a sort of real side of an unreal element.

Here’s an example of the acceptance, an uncontested/unquestioned line such as:
“..…….on the realisation of their art projects……..” from

Is it not the case that when a project is done, to remain within the texts parameters, as much as it might link sequentially with an idea about doing the project, the activity is infact imagining by other means?
This might sound semantic if we imagine that accepting the conclusion has no effect on the process. However, if indeed the imagination done conceptually is not requiring another materialisation/realisation, then it seems to me it might require a new network to be shared. And/or might allow for less power struggles.. Perhaps not less but certainly different ones.. Because now there is a lot of power concentrated in gateway institutions/networks/etc that people deem required for the said “realisation” process. However, if the realisation process within art is superfluous?

Be First to Comment

Leave a Reply