14.11.2008
 
 
 

Normal is a word that everyone sows around, but the only thing that is harvested from it, is discrimination and unnecessary categorization. The word normal gives an assumption that abnormal and deviant exist putting them in a negative light insidiously hinting that they aren’t and never will be equal with normal.

I think the concept of normal and normality should be re-evaluated and redifened. What do we benefit from maintaining norms? Is the concept of otherness created just to prop up normality’s ego? Do norms suffer from such a bad self-esteem that they need this ego-booster? Or are we dealing with such deeply ingrained attitudes that it hurts and scares us to abandon them?

I personally have come to a conclusion that normality is rare and unreasonable. There is no proof that it exists and it can’t be profoundly and thoroughly defined. It is something vague and ambigious that we all think we recognize, you know, like.. You know... Normal. Still everything deviant, queer and abnormal is defined through this dupious matter called normality. I am therefore wondering how reliable this kind of categorizing can be?

I haven’t found any advantages in dividing people into categories. It hasn’t alleviated my life or sparked my persona. Simplyfying complicated issues doesn’t benefit anyone. My art pokes categories and makes them feel uneasy.
“Giddyup gender hierarchys!” I shout with a stroke of a whip.
“Faster dichotomy, faster deep-seated attitudes, faster absoluteness!”

Pen, paper and scissors. Ink, markers and Felt-tipped pens. Thread, crochet hook and knitting needles. Camera, film and flashes. Macbook, mouse and sleepless nights. These are my whip to incite the ingrained attitudes of mind and language forward, towards change.