KIRAC episode 4 'The psychology of Jon Rafman' 

a lot of modern art can be summarized in one question: Isn't it interesting how poor people live?

I know this sounds “shellfish”

i wanna watch jon rafman watch this. maybe he should make a reaction channel. jon rafman reacts

I agree that curators are motivated by the critique of society, and you have touched on a key aspect of the American obsession with self-flagellation of what might be described as Freudian-implemented inevitabilities. I think you are right that Rafman is scared and doesn't trust others, but why not examine that ideology itself as a piece of the art? Why does the judgment of the person become so important in the critique? Are you saying only non-problematic individuals, with clean psyches (how do you define that by the way? only people who think like you?) should make and show art? did you ask anyone else in the gallery whether or not this resonated with them, or is it only your opinion that matters? It's interesting in the dialogue of these documentaries. Like propaganda. Like an internet comments section.

i didnt get to see this gallery (or any others cause lol rural america) but im assuming they were consisted of still life/betamale, mainsqueeze, and erysichthon? i first saw stilllife/betamale cause someone linked it on 4chan, which it was mocked obviously for being overly dramatic and looking into things far too much to find meaning. idk about his psychology cause i'm no armchair/floor psychologist, but i can say that your idea that he's depicting these people as barbaric slaves, lumpenprole, sick fetishists that /need/ help is entirely your own. i don't get that same feeling at all. i think you fell for the shock value of it even though you dont think you did, that made you dismiss the content in favor of psychoanalyzing the artist. you claim he wants to control them when he knows he's a part of them. puppet master? projection. The thing about these videos is that you have to already have seen the content on its own to grasp the full picture, else it's just a bunch of random shit thrown together. For me it's not very affecting, I think it's humorous that he put so much banal stuff like furries, vore, hentai, nasty hikikomori battlestations, etc. etc. that you see every day if you spent a little more time online (not on facebook and twitter). there's sooo much worse stuff he could have highlighted, but either doesnt know or doesnt wanna show it. anyway, what i'm trying to say is that you guys and most likely all of the people who went outside and saw this exhibit will dismiss it as shock value and a malevolent critique, because you haven't ever seen it before. now, from my view as someone who has seen pretty much all this shit and enjoyed trading fucked up images/videos with people in the past, I just laugh. You know deep down these people are fucked up, but your problem is that you think they need or WANT to be saved (which is ironically what you say rafman thinks). Whereas I see it as the freakshow it is. you think that these people exist in a vacuum. i've talked with them online and am friends with them for years. but to be honest, these people are a dying/dead breed. with the progression of the popular internet (top alexa websites) and explosion of mobile computing, it has just dropped off in terms of new content, which the videos show as most of the things presented are fucking OLD. anyway to get back to it, we don't choose to be attracted to things (4:15) which is obvious, because who the hell would WANT to be attracted to vore, drowning furries, gore, etc.? same goes for being fascinated with these people. also the idea of wanting to "liberate" people YOU see as damaged, helpless individuals is manipulative moreso than wanting to see them continue what they're doing. ultimately i see nothing to the extent of "evil sociopath wants to exploit sick idiots to serve his own ideals" in these videos. for one, almost all of the content he holds isn't original, someone else made it, posted it, shared it. it's an artifact of the internet, the "deep" internet, which is an amoral place. he's just showing it to you. but i think above that he's showing it to the people in the video, and the ones who have seen it before, which allows them to see a montage of things we've all seen but in a more poetic, justified sense. really i think you need to be more honest about how the work made you feel before going on to psychoanalyze the person who showed it to you. disgust is only natural.

Not only those presentations definitely weren't for them, they are also part of the problem. You should leave the video believing that pornography and over sexualization in today's world is progress, just ignore the complete mental health crisis that only seems to increase everyday. "Lazy and untrue" the summary of this review.

For me, the 1st half of this video (Jon Rafmam) was disturbing, eerie, and depressing. The 2nd half (Anna Uddenberg) was calming, comforting, and erotic. I wish I could see both of their work in person now!👏👍🏽

Please more english videos.

I think you should be thinking more about Lyotard post modern condition rather than Marx alienation to compare it to Jon Rafman, clearly you havent dwell much in post humanism which is very evident in his work, he is reflecting and putting in evidence the results of his observations after web 2.0 happened and bringing in theories of post-truth and post-humanism, I will say you should be looking into Benjamin's concept of flaneur which explains pretty well his method, he is a truly virtual flaneur.

weird critique, but here to show some love for RafRaf. haters perish!

The introduction of what you call neo christian sense of guilt it's interesting. I would be even more specific by saying this tendency comes from what Christian reigion became later in time, in seek to purge the pagan roots Catholic church always displayed: Puritanism. The (sinful) idea to get back to our ancestral womb trough the use of (not so much) arcaic symbols turned in tramp stamps, explained by Uddenberg with her sculpture, is to condemn the loosening of our minds to theese kind of poser ancestral attitudes. Also Rafman displays a lot of ancient symbols totally teared out from their origina meaning context, mere tools from his shitty statement. But the condemnation is poser itself, as you notice, since it plays with the same rules it condemns, and not giving any sort of lucid useful vision of what we could do with our stupid idiosyncrasies. Exactly what puritanism does: not giving any sort of actual interpretation of existence, but it survives by largely condemn others' behaviour as sinful just to give the illusion of "being aware, partecipateing to something", actually dividing people against themselves. This attitude falls directly in a commercial usefulness, that craves on the foolishness of what previous explained.

i like this dudes critiques. good shit!

wow, i hope to someday have the ability to articulate and intellectualize like you guys do. perhaps i do but times i feel that i lack the comprehensive skills to do such a thing. what is a question I should ask myself when looking at an artwork? I have problems talking about my own stuff maybe because im not all the way there. my mind drifts into areas of enigma. the process is there but the end result is a vague translation that i fear will be deteriorated by people who will automatically dub it as ostentatious. i digress. i like your videos, it lets me think about the interpretations of art.

So because he depicts low-lifes, he has some desire to be a puppet master over them? Just bizarre assumptions about rafman's ideology and desires.

Was waiting for the mirror and the smokescreen... Someway your commentary suits the exhibit as popcorn on the cake, double bind I guess.

so you're suggesting the internet isn't a mirror that reflects how sick people are and how base their desires are? i think it's pretty clear that that's the reality of it. and much art is simply a passive commentary on things. so yes, people are sick. but this should be a general discussion about whether critiques and commentary have a mutually attached relationship to the (often) terrible things they "observe". are they reinforcing the sickness in people? do they secretly want the world to be sick because it's easier to critique something then to find a solution, a way to fix people? that's the real question and that relates to all art over many time periods. the puppetmaster thing makes no sense. his art is simply a critical observation like thousands of others - but whether art in general reinforces and feeds these problems they observe in a negative selfish way is the real question.

this is the least critical analysis I have ever seen from Jon Rafman, I couldnt disagree more in everything you say.

the queen has to see this video

"The human condition" is probably the most extensively used line in modern "art". Obviously, the goons who show in the Stedelijk are spiritually dead. Take some acid and cheer up. Meanwhile, boycott the Stedelijk.

I dont think rafman is trying to lead a group of zombies. I think his work is depicting the fascinating darkness, filthiness and depravity of sick minds. I think this is why we look, feel disgusted and want to keep looking, to explore the symbols and imagery further.

If I would have them as teachers at the art school, I would be petrified....

Geweldig, dit is echt exact wat er fout gaat in de 'moderne' kunst en daaraan ten grondslag postmoderne filosofie!

You say that he makes clichés wich i think is true, isnt all art with a so called meaning bullshit? Everthing is nothing in the end. Nothing happens for a reason. In the end things matter because we assume that it matters. For a animal like a ant things dont matter because he cant think like we do. For him this all doesnt matter so why should anything and therefore art matter while the Amy lives in the same world?

conservatief én pro technologische vooruitgang! how?

lol yes rafman is clearly scared, as are you

Hahaha wat een ‘creatieve’ moeilijkdoenerij allemaal. “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he”, Proverbs‬ ‭23:7‬ ‭KJV‬

@post-pretentious material

_Can you do 20%?_ 😂

No art is meant to be explained or understood. It either works or it does not work. Subjectively. End of story.

your way of discrediting his work relies on positing an imaginary version of humanity that doesn't have the internet, or that would never create the internet. but no such thing exists or ever existed in reality.

i think its for americans

Lord of the Rings analogie = beste analogie

thanks for putting a new spin on the old game of "oh my god Raffman sucks so hard"