People have a problem with anonymity. They associate it with some admission of guilt, secrecy, untrustworthiness and shame. If someone cannot be immediately weighed-up, either visually or aurally, people find the situation hard to grasp. They fear the situation, finding themselves on guard.
It's as if we are constantly in fear of being under attack from the unknown, and what could be more fear-inducing than someone who calculates exactly how much of themselves they wish to reveal. They hold court in this situation. They hold not only your attention, but your peace of mind.
But what if anonymity was chosen as an economical choice? What if a person acted anonymously because they believed that who they are was irrelevant to what they wanted to achieve with what they did offer, what they did release? To allow the action to speak for nothing but itself.
It could be argued that the very presence of the individual offering up something could taint it. When it is possible to make evaluations or assumptions of someone along with their output, the output is inevitably viewed for something other than what it is; it is seen as the individual's creation, rather than an object in its own right.
Does not the painting have the right to be its own object, speak with its own voice? If it does not, then what is its reason? With a medium such as writing, it is doing nothing speaking with its own voice anyway, so why should other expressions not be the same?
Give voice to your output, not output to your voice; it needs it not, for it is a voice already.
No comments:
Post a Comment