Neven Tudić

Putovanje unatrag, ne i povrat istome

Cjelina je i općenitost. Da, cjelina jest, totalitet, općenitost. E nije. A zašto nije? Nije jer se ne zna što je nešto kad je nepoznato. A što je to nepoznato? Ono što nema nešto nasuprot pa da to neznanje usporedimo s tim. Ako nema ništa pored, nasuprot, onda se ne može odnositi, imati relaciju. Ali uvijek nešto postoji od kad je vijeka i čovjeka. Ex nihilo nixil est. Dakle, iz postojećeg nešto može nastati, nešto drugo od tog postojećeg: barem mogućnost. Iz ničega pak ništa, iz ničega bezodnosnog nasta cjelina, općost, znanje, znanstvenost.

Na primjer Nirvana (nigdina,) centralna figura budizma, ali i mišljenja afirmiranog danas… je u komparaciji sa postojećim, danim, zatečenim, bivstvujućim, nazočnim i određujućim sebe kao ništa, negira postojeće kao prolazno i nestajuće. No, na postojećem se afirmira. Ništa, supstancija kao trajanje i vječitost, cjelina, čitavost, neprevladana metafizičnost je nužnost u određenju znanja koje se uzdiže nad pojedinačnim, nad njegove vrste kao posebno i okončavši na rodu, općosti.

To općenito je pojam kojim se definiralo to što je objektivno i što prihvaća većina. Cjelina je ovdje rasla na pojedinačnim i subjektivnim zapažanjima, osjetilima proizvedenim reakcijama na postojeće tu i ovdje prisutno i iskušano. Na prisućnom i datom pred nama, postojećem egzistirala je eto, indijska, antička i europska znanost do današnjih dana.

Cijeli tekst >>>

A journey back, not a return to the same

The whole is a generality. Yes, the whole is, totality, generality. It's not. And why not? It's not because you don't know what something is when it's unknown. And what is that unknown? That which does not have something opposite, so let's compare that ignorance with that. If there is nothing beside, opposite, then it cannot relate, have a relationship. But there is always something since the beginning of time and man. Ex nihilo nixil est. So, something can emerge from the existing, something else from that existing: at least a possibility. From nothing, then nothing, from nothing unrelated, a whole, generality, knowledge, scientificity emerges.

For example, Nirvana (never), the central figure of Buddhism, but also of the opinion affirmed today... is in comparison with existing, given, caught, existing, present and defining itself as nothing, negates the existing as transitory and disappearing. However, it is affirmed on the existing one. Nothing, substance as duration and eternity, wholeness, completeness, unsurpassed metaphysicality is a necessity in the determination of knowledge that rises above the individual, above its species as particular and ending at the genus, the generality. It is generally a term used to define what is objective and what is accepted by the majority. The whole here grew on individual and subjective observations, senses produced by reactions to the existing here and there present and experienced. Indian, ancient and European science has existed on the present and given in front of us, the existing one until today.

Thought is that which is in the service of determining the existing: ancilla. As in science, so it is in theology, art, politics... Generality is a sign of the objective and almost accepted by everyone. Generality as a distance from individuality is precisely the condensate of the separate ugliest and happiest moments, the happiest and saddest, the silliest and the smartest, criminal and most honest actions. A concentrate of everyday life that knowledge tries to improve, to know, to know through generalization. That and every book collects in itself: those daily struggles, needs and obstacles of survival. And they are not cabinet. However, not every but RARE book, picture, music...

And what is that unknown? Whole? So how when we determined it through existing and present things and it is known as such, which is what it is and is contained in the concept by which marriage was reached precisely by exaltation at the expense of flawed, deceptive and transitory individuality. Thus, the principle of Nirvana has been maintained through the Greco-Roman, medieval, and modern-day thinking (with the exception of Aristotle and Hegel).

But, that starting point is unknown. Because it is just plain, neglected, neglected and rejected. What else is known about it? And why and to whom? That Is is precisely through existing. And I am, because I think, and because I have a confirmation of myself that I am in my physicality. Even before, that's because I am. Oops! In physicality, in the existing, present and evident what I see in front of me, touch, smell... I get confirmation that it is, that I am. That is, being is automatically present through it. And yes, yes, and I am here. We are not alone and we cannot do it without that other that confirms us, because that is ME and that is empty if there is no one and nothing next to it. We do not relate without the presence of the other. Obviously, in order to be, to exist, the presence of something else in space and time is necessary. Next to something. Being seeks confirmation in sensory or intellectual dawn. But that Is and I is determined not from itself and by itself, the Thing is, I am. They are determined by existing things and existing concepts. They are not unknown. And they couldn't stand it at all, it IS IN ITSELF, the intrigue in itself...

So where is that Jest hiding? Thief! He is gone. It's not that he's hiding, he's not there. Well, it is general and elusive. It cannot be touched or felt. It is universal. Obviously more universal than the general, determined through individual things, and through the lens of me, you, her, him... Why is it more general, better to say general and complete as opposed to that relative, conditioned generality started from the existing and referring to something.

Wholeness in itself cannot be reduced to something. There is no opposition, it does not refer to anyone or anything. It Is in itself and cannot be determined and is nothing. It's a process. But, even in that inseparable unity, the Battle and

Nothing was determined, nothing, it started, it arises and ceases, it is born and dies. It is then Something, as opposed to Nothing and Is. So that something HAS itself, it has Is and Nothing, it HAS birth and dying. It is not alone, it is filled with what it HAS. It HAS an inseparable unity and an incomparable generality, the unity of the immediately indeterminate Is and Nothing. And the determination of that waiting, that process of Nothing and Is. And that whole and immediate indeterminacy will go through its growth to become true, serious and free from APPEARANCE and any conditionality, reason and cause, if they are not justified by effect, consequence. Passing through all these narrow throats of reality, fighting against all narrow-mindedness and limitations of the subject, the individual's thought throws itself excitedly at the initial generality and whole that is not equal, because it is vague and unrecognizable, it is thought out.

The existent is the ME and it is, it is undeniably MECHANICAL. It is easier to grab them that way, than if Something that is produced from the movement of Is and Nothing.

And where are we now, concretely, for real? Well, we are in APPARITION! Why in some unreal, apparitional, maybe yes-maybe no, deceptive and conditioned world? And Plato and all the others up to Kant, Heidegger for many years... grasped this fact which is not doubtful, because it can be proven by records.

Yes, we are at war! The whole is torn. Every wholeness is torn when it is brought by an individual, a subject, I, You, She, He... on the basis of records and the unquestionable Self. With this My interpretation, you cannot understand only that particularity, partiality, and I place them under general, complete, under knowledge. And even if the power is with me, the army and the police, let's go to realize my partiality, and conceited generality! It's war, man. And I don't want there to be some condition in front of me, something against that is holding me back. And what's holding me back now, and not only now, is something else, another man. There is no room for anyone else, but only for me, and for my generality. And war is one of the lowest levels of pure thought. War, after determining the quality, is only a ratio of sizes. It is a quantitative relationship in which the raw count is on the victory and defeat of the loser. How and what the consequences are, JA doesn't think about it and doesn't care. My understanding (MISUNDERSTANDING) MUST come true. I'm winning. There is no martyrdom here. Just WIN! No matter who will give the initial completeness, now not ideal and transcendent, not even utopian, not the one where one should only reach the vision, otherwise life would be missed like sand through the fingers of a playful child (Heraclit).

***

Nada plays rugby. I watched them in Sinj at the beginning of October 2021. Zoran and I commented on the rules of rugby (a big thank you to coach Zoran for his patience during numerous additions and corrections after listening to my layman's interpretations of the rules and the apparently harsh and belligerent men's game). But the rivalry is reduced to the psychophysical potential of each individual. It is a noble game of rivals. And it rests on wisdom: who will outsmart whom. It is the victory of man for man's sake and the growth of one's own strength in which the other side also wins, because they will try to eliminate their weaknesses and understand that community, unity, generality, totality, wholeness, wholeness is the most difficult thing to understand, because it is at the beginning and at the end distinguished wholeness. However, in some difference according to Nietzsche's Eternal Return of the same and the model of technological and technological production of the world.

Cyclops's rotation

Apstraktna geometrija - 22 slike

"Nietzsche plants cherries"

"Symphony orchestra?"

The mind, the absolute spirit and the absolute idea are all synonyms of the mind that contemplates itself.

Descartes’ famous Cogito, ergo sum (I think, therefore I am) is not constituted by contemplating 'I'=Ego. 'I' is an unquestionable, given and caught, and as such it is abstractly determined, or undetermined. Being (Esse) or 'I am=It is' is determined by the existence of 'I'. Therefore, the unquestionable fact of the existence of 'I' speaks of the existence of the main subject - him, something, someone. And we want to be questioning that mechanically accepted fact upon which the contemporary world rests so that we can question it and state that it leads to Rashomon, the conditionality of such an ingrained notion: subjectivism aka egoism.

Being=Existence is only a product of the evidence of some someone, some being, and here, of that 'I=Ego'. And so Being is conditioned and limited by that 'I'. 'I' is empty in itself because it doesn’t contemplate itself and so it needs an outer object or event to fill its own void.

But Being, per se, is unlimited, pure, unconditioned, empty and unaffiliated with any particular being that could set its limits. As such, it is universal but differs from universality and an orientation towards such abstract generalities present in all manifestations of today - most visible in politics, where private interests of elites overflow under the cover of universalities, in which in extreme cases the army, police and state power are called in order to realize those universal (but in fact mine) ideas. Therefore, the existence of all of us is conditioned by the goals of our rulers.

In short: Being (Esse) was before - and is before - any particular being. It powers itself from its own void, unlike other created beings that necessitate others for their own affirmation. Both, Being and Thought, are empty, undetermined, direct and inseparable one from another. They move in the void specifying their emptiness and pureness. By that self-determination, Being becomes something else, something determined and conscious, ontologically different from the undetermined, immediate and most general.

Nothing emerges from nothing, and so is the creation and making of sculpture, film, music and literature. There must be something, some kind of evident, sensory object to register and identify with and sculpt our own, and accidental will. But Being (Esse) is free from all existence of something. It creates itself from pure nothingness, from true universality different than any particularity.

Unspeakableness of that first 'Nothing' rejects the empirical facts of given and created, withered away as natural and self-explanatory emergence and disappearance. Therefore, the path of development and self-determination of of that initial - undetermined and unrelated to others - is shortened. The above said is the origin of both, life and death, in their finality and finiteness, of the impossibility to reach an original universality that is absolute. It is the only way to overcome the complacency determined as the main motive of art, work and the individual and limited act.

Questioning the unquestionable and factual Ego=I=Universality, Being is transferred to all spheres of life – technology, politics, art and so forth. Art lives through the ambition to reach the absolute but also dies because of the need for the presence of an object or event. - Which leads to random reaction and subjectivism, so that the contemplation of art necessitates image and impression conditioned and terminated by the presence of an object. But only negation and the negation of negation open the path to return to the enriched presence of unlimited and infinitely free Being.

Neven Tudić // 02.05.2020.

Ptica bez glave i repa

Likovno djelo se mora vidjeti da bismo mogli razgovarati o dojmu kojeg je ostavio umjetnik na nas. Dakle, nužnost opažanja slike je neminovna. A od kuda ta nužnost, taj uvjet da se nešto, pa tako i umjetničko djelo MORA vidjeti, osjetiti.

Od kuda izvire ta nužnost, taj objektivan pristup, a na koncu, taj mehanizam. Bez prihvaćanja te nužnosti neće se ostvariti dojam, predodžba o umjetnini. Da li je upitna ta obveznost kao datost, činjenica , zatečenost i nikako neka bitna alternativa. Ne, jer to je samorazumljivo i prirodno, opće prihvaćeno i šta drugo od tog opće ustanovljenog?

Od kuda potreba da se usvoji nužnost a time ograničenost, pa tako i konačnost ?
Da li je samorazumljivost nešto izvorno i slobodno ili razlog da pomislimo da nama nešto upravlja i upućuje na automatizam, autoritet, na subordinaciju i točnost. Da li je takav put ulazak u istinu?
Svaka samorazumljivost počiva na ograničenju da se nešto samo po sebi neobjašnjeno i apstraktno ostavi u nejasnoći i nerasvijetljenosti. Lakše je ostati u nečem što je jasno i što ne traži daljnje traganje za izvorom, već se fiksira u toj tmini i jednostavnom identitetu, okončanom u samom sebi. U takvom mehanizmu mi smo gledatelji, dakle i subjekti nasuprot čega je nešto objektivno, dakle slika. Da li taj Ja koji sebe dovršava u prostom identitetu da sam Ja Ja čime samorazumljivost sebe dovodi u evidentnost i jasnoću od kuda se nema potrebe dalje ići i ništa drugo pitati. Ta samorazumljivost okončava u tom prostom i prekinutom identitetu=subjektu sada gledatelju od kuda se kreće prema vani, prema objektu, sada umjetničkom djelu. Eto nas u području rabljenog izraza: Condicio sine qua non (uvjet bez kojeg se ne može).

No izvorno i prvo jeste to Jest: apsolutno i čisto je, bez podijeljenosti, razlike i odnosa. U sebi je identitet bitka=Jest i Ništa. I neodređeno je. Upravo otvoreno i neodređeno Jest i stoga jest u jedinstvu sa Ništa. Već to određenje toga neodređenoga je postalo, dakle nastalo i nestalo ali sad već stupilo u odnos određenjem izvornog u to drugo i tuđe izvornog i prvog, neograničenog, slobodnog, općenitog. Iz tog izvorno nastaje nešto određenjem ali onoga što je neodređeno i samo po sebi određenje neodređenoga je upravo negacija i repulzija tom početnom i čistom. To strano, to drugo sebe samoga je zarobljeno u negaciji koju negaciju nova negacija uvodi upravo konkretizaciji općenitoga i nesputanoga.

A taj Ja što okončava u praznom jednakosti, identitetu sa samim sobom, pa je konačan i ograničen prema općenitoj realnosti koja je bezvremenska i neograničena, jer je neodređena, prihvaćen je kao jedinstvo i sinteza razlike, podijeljenosti te apstraktne općosti na subjekt i objektu, zatvoren je u samorazumljivosti, i praznini upućenoj upravo da formalno sjedini rastavljenu zatočenost na subjekt i objekt, jer je sjedinjenje samo prihvaćeno, a nikako pokrenuto po sebi samome, bez odnosa na neko drugo, dakle bez suprotnosti i prihvaćene razlike. Takovo prihvaćeno jedinstvo jer je postavljeno, a ne proizvedeno je ugašeno i postavljeno samo kao nešto a priori formalno i idealno, te u toj zaustavljenosti, praznini i konstataciji nema kretanja. Zato se moraju prihvatiti samo date, zatečene stvari koje svaki subjekt producira na svoj nacin što ide u nedogled, beskonačnost.

Iz narečenog htjeli smo reći da misao po sebi samoj, iz čistog početka gdje je bitak=to Jeste i Ništa sjedinjeno, a neograničeno nečim drugim što određuje sebe ne priznajući nikakvo zatečeno stanje, nikakvu podjelu, onda i podjelu na umjetničko djelo i publiku, nego i to zatečeno, konkretno publiku i umjetnika kao nositelja umjetničkog djela upućuje na nužnost povratka u početnu i otvorenu neodređenost sada osvješćenu , tj. svjesnu te prvotne neograničenosti kao beskonačno bitnog puta. Budući da je misao prošla kroz tu početnu otvorenost, a zatim nužnost ograničenja te otvorenosti upravo svjesnim određivanjem samopostavljene pojave u razlici na publiku i umjetničko djelo, nužno je i imanentno negirati pojavu i pojavnost kao nešto što nastaje i nestaje, kao nešto što je prolazno i okončava, a produženo u čežnju, nadu i zvjezdano nebo. Stoga tu unaprijed postavljenu razliku u umjetnosti samoodređenjem pojma, misli u neograničenu prvotnost uvesti u realiziranu slobodu.

Isti je princip bitan i za politiku(„bez koje se ne može“) i svaku pojavu počevši od rada, tehnologije, znanosti i svega onoga što je uhvaćeno i zatočenu u određenost koju bespogovorno, automatski i mehanički usvajamo.
Ptica bez glave i repa upravo simbolički, dakle na umjetnički način, uskraćen za sredstva kojim ne može slikati mislima ukazuje na potrebu prevladavanja subjektivnog, pojedinačnog stava i opće prihvaćenog stava o nemogućnosti promjene nečega ustanovljenog kao status quo (što je također produkt mišljenja), upravo nužnošću da okrenemo, tj. stavimo na noge ono što na bilo koji način ograničava prodor u istinu i slobodu.

Neven Tudić // 30.01.2019.

DIALEKTIKAL MAMMOTH „It doesn't suit you,mammoth,when you're turned! You look unnatural“

What lies before and prior to the thought determined value judgement of that which IS, the BEING itself? By necessity, the turning of the mammoth became a phenomenon, a phenomenon perceived throught our senses. As mammoth is the object presented to the eye, wie form and shape opinions about the observed. Is it that which it is? Mammoth is limited by our perception, and our perception is limited by the displayed disclosed object-mammoth. Althought dependence on the object (ness) limits us, our views and stands are reassured by the presented BEING. And what exactly is released from our sensibility of the object?-well,what do you say, mammoth?

The Big Bang Theory has been built into the destruction of every hierarchy, organization and system based on external planning. When this administrative-bureaucratic system will destruct, we ask the following epochs. Therefore I present the pyramidal organization phenomenon through one of its manifestations: Brainwashing.

Consequently, the performances named "Washing..." will wash out the brain placed on the pedestal. At the entrance of the intended room for the performances is a small banister (fence), and in front of the banister - entrance will march a soldier who symbolizes the system he guards and protects: the system of brainwashing.

That is the reason he does not allow anyone to enter. However, since every system has a small puncture that turns into a giant hole trying hard to conceal and camouflage it, thus certain sloppiness and lack of pedantry of the soldier - the guardian of the system will suggest with this individual act the porosity of the system. We have to wait and see when the action for the change will actually take place...

The motive of my work in visual art is the attempt to find fundamentals of the visual objectivity (registered by emotions), which is known as the immediate first stage of cognition, in the fact that, above all, it is. For, if the criterion of knowledge is what I see and sense before me, then this knowledge is ever based on subjective, individual view and is always limited. This relativity does not question the subject, which ultimately, especially in politics, seeks power to adopt and realize my own opinion to be the best one. Thereby the world is submitted to the power through which and by means of which my superiority is established over the others. We, the men, before anything else, are.

This ''are'' = essence is the unlimited, the freest that should be the reason to doubt my limited and subjective attitude which is precisely realized by power, strength, force. And the perception of the magnificent ''are'' represents our motive of work and overcoming the restraints by the acknowledgement that we are beings open to freedom and limitlessness, and not necessarily function of the other and superior.

Welcome to the online gallery where you can see some works from the 7 series and 4 movies.