from AC/DC Talk series

Everybody knows Evgeny Mitta. If you haven't seen how he worked with Aidan Salakhova and Alexander Yakut at the First Gallery (actually that was the gallery's name), so you could have taken part in either of the three art actions, that Evgeny organized in last two years. All of them - "The Night of Arts" at Pilot night club, "Artists Against Sex" at Manhattan Express night club and "Ice-cream Art" at Ice Fili factory, - had something special in common; they were unconstrained, well organized, joyous, and their conception was somewhat elusive. The latter circumstance, though it might be inevitable if contemporary art is been put forward to 'amusement' context, is what I'm interested in. One critic, a friend of mine, has a remarkable ability to build up an orderly concept on just any art material; at this point he reminds me of Prof. Evgeny Voishvillo, a world renowned logician, who taught us first-grade university students it's not a contents, that is important about judgement but rather its logic structure which shows whether it's true or false. The more elegant is the solution, the better. Our critic is famous for the beauty of his speculations, that he carves at times in a nearly baroque shape. So, he told me, with some astonishment, he couldn't find an appropriate 'optical device' to focus on the 'Objects for Meditation'; and he has experienced a true intellectual annoyance, that mathematicians and logicians are familiar with, when a problem doesn't get formalized. then I reminded Prof. Evgeny Bocharov, of the same logic department, who later - at the second grade - explained us various types of modern non-formal logics, like the Lukasievicz logic, where a judgement could have not only a 'true' or 'false' value but also 'non-false', or 'non-true', or 'probable'.

Probably the objects made by Evgeny Mitta are really non-true and non-false. Anyway I feel it might not be fruitful to treat them with straightforward formal logical or refined associative approach. It's obvious - they have quality, the quality that attracts attention. Unfortunately, a contemporary human who belongs to Euro-American civilization, needs to - and could - be attracted to the subject of speculation only by the subject's outer sensomotoric parameters or by importance of the theme (what's called 'actual'). That's where the trick is. These objects are not intended to be comprehended, interpreted or discussed. They are, as it is honestly said in the title, for meditation. I wouldn't like to throw doubts on the sincerity of the author's statement, but let me suppose that his essay on the 'new fear' unwillingly works like a stool-pigeon of the edible size, recognizable color and familiar scent. Though meditation is not totally opposite to discursive way of knowledge but somehow perpendicular to it. Here, in case of success, the knowledge is gained immediately. Hence there's no any universal algorithmic procedure, everyone opens up something 'own'. Which is natural, as true meditation can't have uniform rules for everybody; thus each one tries to express the truth conceived - even if it's the same one truth - in one's own words. The great Indian logician of the V century Dignaga, who faced these problems long before Lukasievicz, has even divided the logical conclusion into two types - 'for oneself' and 'for other', and formulated the concept of relative meaning of words. But if you starts meditation at the presented objects, everything's not so complex, or as AC/DC bring it in their cheerful song 'Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap'...