today, the territory of art is a delta river that has no banks. the delta starts already at the source. the source in such “river/ non-river“, with not one, but many, flows, some of them even running against the original flow, is identified in the historical maps only. the "bank-lessness“ refers to a desire for absolute freedom. the bank-lessness is charged with the loss of isms, the loss of general critical categories and the intersubjectivity dependency (not essentially emphatic): yes, intersubjectivity is a territory for fruitful exchanges, mutual help, but also strengthy or powerful actions. in such delta, everyone depends on oneself in searching for their kin. here, everyone is professional and amateur at the same time. if we are professional in something, it does not mean our main income comes from this activity. it may happen that our main income comes from “secondary“ activity which financially supports our desired “primary“ activity. if we call jan ballx an amateur, mentioning the notorious saying: “everyone is an artist“ from public dialogues by joseph beuys (1974) then he will be in the same group with otis laubert, jiří kovanda, mladen stilinovič, man ray, marcel broodthaers, woody allen, frank lloyd wright, orson welles, fillip thomass marrinetti, tadao andó, hans-ulrich obrist, peter behrens, ludwig mies van der rohe or quentin tarantino. not mentioning the poets because almost none of them studied what they were good at. (....and by no means mentioning the musicians). the term “amateur“ surfaces in the 18th century from the french root “amare“ = to love. thus, it is a romantic construction- to do something out of love. love and its sensual or cognitive positions are the themes of jan ballx’s work. carnality is as much a “subject“ of the “theme“, as well as an “object“ of the “action“ (productive catharsis- “hand-made“ creativity). at this point we can mention also freud ́s “intimacy“ and lacan ́s “extimity“ and say that jan ballx is a doctor of psychiatry, our territory being its cradle; therefore he enters this area from the basis of specific knowledge/experience. however, we cannot overexpose this, as the productive activity of this kind is nonlinear to his scientific and therapeutic praxis. our territory is also the cradle for modern art or modernity itself. i agree with harald szeemann’s statement that visionariness can only be born from an eccentric focal point. jan ballxs’ starting points or “positioning“ to standardized modern art operation can be considered as eccentric, too. my personal relationship towards him or his both works (the first and the seconds one) is, by no means, egalitarian, but radically intersubjective, based on a true interdepartmental exchange. such “resonance“ then leads to the “third sounds“ on both sides= new dimension. yet, this is new dimension by jan ballx.

text by boris ondreička 2013

Teritorium umenia dnes je deltou rieky, ktora sa musela vzdat brehov. Ta delta sa zacina hned od pramena. Pramen v takejto „rieke-nerieke“, ktora nema jeden tok, ale mnoho, viacere dokonca iduce proti „povodnemu“ prudu, je identifikovany uz iba v historickych mapach. Ta „bezbrehost“ sa vztahuje k naroku absolutnej slobody. Bezbrehost sa plati koncom Izmov, stratou vseobecnych kritickych kategorii, odkazanostou na intersubjektivitu (nie nevyhnutne empaticku): ano, intersubjektivita je teritoriom plodnej vymeny, vzajomnej pomoci, ale i silovych, ci mocenskych posobeni. V takejto delte je kazdy odkazany iba sam na seba v hladani pribuznych entit. Tu sme vsetci aj profesionalmi aj amatermi. Ak sme v niecom profesionali, to este nemusi znamenat, ze prave z toho pochadzaju nase prijmy. Moze sa stat, ze nase prijmy pochadzaju z inej cinnosti ako z tej, ktoru povazujeme za tuzobne primarnu, ze prijmy zo „sekundarnej“ cinnosti sluzia na financovanie tej „primarnej“. Ak Jana Ballxa oznacime za amatera, spominajuc notoricke „Kazdy je umelec“ z Verejnych dialogov Josepha Beuysa z roku 1974, tak ho budeme priradovat k Otisovi Laubertovi, Jirimu Kovandovi, Mladenovi Stilinovicovi, Manovi Rayovi, Marcelovi Broothaersovi, Woodymu Allenovi, Frankovi Lloydovi Wrightovi, Orsonovi Wellesovi, Fillipovi Thomassovi Marrinettimu, Tadaovi Andaovi, Hansovi Ulrichovi Obristovi, Peterovi Behrensovi, Ludwigovi Miesovi van den Rhohemu alebo Quentinovi Tarantinovi, a basnikov spominat nebudem, lebo skoro nik ani nestudoval, v com neskor vynikal (...a hudobnikov uz absolutne nie). Termin „amater“ sa vynara v 18. storoci z francuzskeho korena „amare“ = milovat. Je to romanticka konstrukcia – robit nieco z lasky. Laska a jej zmyselne, ci kognitivne „polohy“ su temami prac Jana Ballxa. Telesnost je ako „subjektom“ „temy“, tak „objektom“ „akcie“ (katarzie produktivnej – „rucnej“ tvorivosti). Na tomto mieste by sme mohli spomenut aj Freudovu „intimitu“ a Lacanovu „extimitu“ a uviest, ze Jan Ballx je doktorom psychiatrie, ktorej modernou koliskou je nase teritorium, teda do tychto vod urcite vstupuje z pody specifickej vedomosti / skusenosti, avsak nesmieme to exponovat, lebo produktivna tvorivost tohto typu je prenho cinnost nelinearna voci jeho terapeutickej a vedeckej praxi. Nase teritorium je tak isto aj koliskou moderneho umenia, ci modernity vobec. Suhlasim s tym, co tvrdil Harald Szeemann, ze vizionarstvo sa moze plodit iba z excentrickeho ohniska. Vychodiska, ci poziciovanie Jana Ballxa voci standardizovanej prevadzke sucasneho umenia tiez mozeme oznacovat za excentricke. Moj vztah k nemu a jeho praci (jednej i druhej) nie je vonkoncom rovnostarsky, ale radikalne intersubjektivny, zalozeny na pravdivej medziodborovej vymene. Takato „rezonancia“ potom usti v „tretie zvuky“ na oboch stranach = nove dimenzie. Toto je prave Nova Dimenzia Jana Ballxa.

text boris ondreička 2013