i find it so so strange, while working and talking with friends about other works, how older works i love and cherish, have become completely castrated by time and put into a context that absolutely negates their former core and turns them into something empty, but still beautiful, which makes everything even more ambivalent and complicated. for instance the beautiful aesthetics of old jonas mekas´ films, -you´ll find them again in telephone commercials nowadays. the overexposed, grainy, soft 8 or 16mm aesthetics, the aesthetics of polaroids, of faded light. you will find tarkovsky´s revolutionary style in fashion magazines all over the place. but what does this tell me about tarkovsky or about fashion? -was tarkovsky´s style maybe in its core from the beginning on mere decorative aesthetics? or is it just the devouring capitalist monster at work? it´s so tricky working with beautiful images, or probably anything beautiful i guess, because all too much affirmation, will make things ineffective, unable to really transform and move beyond, because beauty is always looking backwards, missing something lost, that was most probably never even at hand.
there always has to be one thing out of order, i suppose, one thing absolutely wrong, broken, not affirming, like a resisting element, that will say no, that will dare supposed ugliness, that will dare conflict and confrontation.