The normal definition by our society for many times sounds bullshit than talking with the clouds. It happens in and all around the consensus from the state’s governmentality in order to reduce and control the political participation and then normalize into the one simplest and sufficient enough for the government to pay the bill of intervention. Hence, we are then defined and simultaneously marked by the sorts of idioms of the existing regulation. Rather than practicing and pushing forward the real democratic society, the government is the real evil who campaigns the absolute and egoistic level of authoritarianism. Here what we learned from the Mayday masses’ action in Bandung is simply that the State is extremely fascist than ever which persistently generated by the logic of authoritarianism.

For months before Mayday, the greatest Pessoa places me into an ice box. The thoughts about his style heteronym-ism run me away from the general assumptions that body is impossible to be hidden, to walk away from the practice of authoritarianism, like as the internet espionage and/or direct intervention from the State. If there left such possibility to cover our self from those interventions, what’s the most possible way? and how it works in the most approriate way?

At least—until I found Ugricic’s public lecture video.

Serten Ugricic—as far as I search on the internet—is one of the leading Slovenian thinker of our present century, his specific contribution was on resisting the old tradition of readymade. Thus, the conception of meadyrade declares the materiality of the world of art, seeking in what logics the materiality of art can be more accessible to public domain, and relating on how and why the will to be accessible on art arenas works in such particular roles. In the contrary, Ugricic offers a new conception called Meadyrade in order to against the readymade’s tradition. In his public lecture session at the EGS, he defined the Meadyrade as;

“The work of art which is deliberately inaccessible to the public or the audiences, but by the intention and the free-will of the author”

To justify his arguments, Ugricic employs the three examples of the work of art as the materials and taking the connection between meadyrade and the free-will of the author. The Bulgakov’s masterpiece on literature The Master and Margita and Broch’s novel The Death of Virgil represents the notion of the meadyrade in fiction and The Life of Virgil by Pontius as the material of the non-fiction.

 In all along Ugricic’s analysis, inclusivity is the basic foundation of the readymade in which the author/artist has greater propensity to bring something the non-art-world to the art world and only by this inclusion, the material gets the aura of art. That being said, still left the possibility for the senses to reach this materiality’s domain than the meady is only can be reached by the imagination of the self. Like as somewhat Bulgakov and Broch did that they preferably burned out their manuscripts rather than publish it. Just by the free-will of the author, the world of art of the manuscript is taken away from the process of inclusivity and only the imagination of us can imagine the auras of the manuscript.

Come to last minutes of his talk, Ugricic run the Pessoa’s practice of art especially on his praxis to destroy and not to publish his masterpieces. Upon which I concluded that the possibility to run away from the State’s interventions can only be realized insofar the imagination is the air (of informations) about us.