Charles Avery, “Indescribable”, 2013


Charles Avery, “Indescribable”, 2013 (1)

I learned the intellectual lessons of the inevitability of clashes and wars by two international events/situations – US opening the Second front between USA and Nazi Germany, and US deciding to radically enlarge American investment into high-tech weapons including nuclear after the Soviet retard-idealists like Gorbachev offered the Americans drastic mutual reduction of military spending as soon as the Russians had decided to dismantle their version of Socialism together with Communist ideology.

Indeed, why did Americans enter the war? And why didn’t they use the lucky situation to save a lot of money by accepting the Russian proposal and starting to spend the extra means on peaceful investments – in peaceful economy, life, science, culture instead of continuing to spend on high-tech weapons?

The answer to the first question beside the propagandist “good words” of ideological motivations (like anti-Nazi posture and the necessity to defend democracy) is that American leadership became sure that if US will not open the second front the Soviet Russians can swallow up a big chunk of Europe. Besides, closer to the end of war militant conservatives amidst American leadership were very interested in Nazism as an ideology (its ability to despotically rule over the masses while simultaneously keeping them happy because it encouraged their contempt and hate for everybody who is not Arian). In other words, Nazi ideology taught its American disciples how to rule while simultaneously nurturing in masses nationalist megalomania and hate, for example not only for fascists, but also towards anti-fascists, towards “socialists”, minority groups and non-Americans in general and contempt for other countries. Also Americans learned from Nazis scientific sophistication and technological achievements in the area of military needs. It is well known how many Nazi doctors, technical scientists and even intellectuals were transferred from Germany to comfortable abodes of American Democracy.

The answer to the second question is even more amazing. Close to the end of 20th century Soviet Russian leadership became ready to sacrifice their country – the Soviet Union in exchange for collaboration and friendship with US – it liberated itself from the Soviet ideology for the sake of eliminating from the world the danger of nuclear Holocaust. They became a new capitalist country in order to start a new epoch of relations with United States and the world – they offer to mutually destroy nuclear weapons and together proclaim to the world the real possibility of eternal peace on the Planet Earth guaranteed by regular inspections. The miracle was that US declined, simply and quickly, while adding a humorous remark that Russia doesn’t need any more high-tech weapons anyway – US will protect it from any dangers. More, US took course on drastic increase investments of its capital into high-tech and super-nuclear weapon systems. Why not to use the opportunity for a worldwide peace?

What can be the reason for refusing the chance for a future of peace over permanent menace of disastrous wars? Of course, the idolatrous fixation on technology is human obsession. Technology stimulate superstitions because it promises power and wealth, both to a superfluous degree. While life is preferable to the death, but power and wealth, it seems, are… even more preferable than living. Power (weapon systems) and wealth (profit making) were somehow able to psychologically conquer life – to become human life’s twin-gods and transform life into their servant and slave correspondingly. Gaining private power and gaining private wealth became not just meaning of life, but its essence, part of life with a status of being more than life. It gained strength to suffocate life, to become a pseudo-living for the sake of power and wealth, not for living in body, soul and understanding life and world.

Something is rotten, it seems, not just in the human species, but in the very logic of Creation. Of course, it would be too easy to accuse God-Creator and feel ourselves as poor victims. Instead let’s concentrate on Charles Avery’s puzzling Semantic Construction “Indescribable”.

Avery’s dogs or dog – two headless dogs or one two-body dog, may be have/has the ability to clear for us the very logic of animosity – preference for (totalitarian) domination over (democratic) friendship. The absence of heads underlines the primacy of blind (instinctual) vitality (of alive bodies) over emotional intelligence (which needs head to settle in). Those brainless dogs or dog are/is full of energy to live, to jump, to press or resist pressure, but the intra-bodily contradictory excitements or mutuality of two bodies, rivaling and clashing muscular stresses are full of rivalrous energies and like in the boxing or wrestling are full of intra-bodily “technology” of competition and fight. This pre-soul and pre-thinking vitality is monotonous while versatile and is potentially or actually destructive.

Being bodily connected through a mutual (joint) neck (without any heads) is Avery’s startling image of symbiotic identification in animal and human kingdom(s) – of a totalitarian unity irresistible for people with underdeveloped individualities and limping rationality. Automatically similar or even identical mass ideological views, like the Soviet Communist ideology or American Conservative ideology of domination by financial dealers and billionaires and their political vassals over human life are not saving from mutual hate. One-neck-ness is a term defining the condition of people under ideology of domination which controls the togetherness symbolized by Avery’s headless-brainless dog(s). Similarly thinking people are not less in a situation of rivalry and competition, but even more aggressive with one another – rivalry with similarity even more despotic, like sometimes between brothers, sisters and identical twins. “Socialist” or “Capitalist” countries can engage in even more furious wars with their “doubles” than politically different systems with their opposites. This situation is depicted by Avery’s dog(s). The paradox here is that the American conservative leaders detest post-Communist Russia much more than they did the Soviet Communist system – that’s why they decided to respond to Russian proposal of mutual disarmament by not reducing but over-financing development and production of American arms. Avery’s dog(s) is/are playful with itself/each other, but this playfulness is potentially dangerous, like “Ultimate Fight” is becoming more and more popular among adults and kids alike among athletes and audiences in comparison with the traditional boxing and wrestling.

Countries are not equally aggressive in their militancy, but the problem is, that when one country attacks another, the country-victim is, naturally, prone to defend itself and in the process it becomes, if not equally, but comparably aggressive. That is what can happen with Avery’s dog(s) – their militancy can become exaggerated and equal and as such more natural. They can become even more headless/brainless. And so are people in war – instead of sensing/thinking they develop and apply/deploy a pre-intuitive computer-like manipulative calculation – they push-and-pull like Trump his opponents and himself. Avery’s dog(s) feel itself/each other through its own/their neck(s), as pure brainlessness and soullessness. It/they is/are fighting with mutual/self-anger and self-hate. They perceive themselves/one another as meaningless, as nothing, like it happened and continues to happen with wars for domination – most wars of human history.

May be, the situation with Avery dog(s) and with what this image signify is not so much indescribable, but rather unresolvable. The paradox of war is the ultimate identity of the fighting sides, when indiscriminate murder becomes immanent motivation of both fighting equally with one another and with itself, wounding and killing each other and themselves and are carrying mutuality of insatiable domination and reciprocity of inevitable togetherness dreaming of apocalyptic end.


Charles Avery (1973-)