金子柚
FIG.1
Can “romance” be connected to creativity—and perhaps even to the activism that lies beyond it?
I have discovered within “romance” a structure consisting of the smallest unit of relationship. The object of that relationship is always the other person—an absolute other. That is precisely why I believe romance provides us with a never-ending process of continuously building relationships.
Not “someone,” but “you.” In his book, artist Rintaro Fuse discusses the word “you” . The moment the word “you” is spoken, it is directed at a single, specific person.In the same book, Fuse also discusses the “love letter” as a general term for texts and the relationships that are shaped exclusively within this smallest unit of connection—“me and you”—describing it as a “method of world-making” that allows us to temporarily escape an overly connected society, spend time together as a couple, and then return to that connection.
Might creativity be defined as the thought process involved in achieving an unattainable goal within the most basic unit of a relationship? Here, I propose the hypothesis that the “love letter” can be established as one of the most primitive forms of creativity.At the first Semi-Public Editorial Meeting, “Technology and Craftsmanship,” we reflected on “romance.” Below, I will explain how that discussion led to the questions that would connect to the second meeting, “The Public and Citizens.”
Has “romance” become replaceable with relationships that have lost the reality of being scrutinized by a third party?Because dating apps are so well-suited to the system of desire that is romance, we can skip the most burdensome phases of dating. As a result, the discussion revealed that we have come to intuitively feel that, when asked what has changed due to the intervention of AI and technology, it is romance that has changed the most.
While romance exists in various contexts, it is particularly convenient when tied to social desires to have a standardized method. We can easily fulfill our desires simply by swiping on our smartphones. On the other hand, we unconsciously crave the very process that has been short-circuited, and the more we become aware of this, the more we sink into a sense of emptiness.To begin with, while dating apps may seem to accelerate the achievement of our goals, aren’t they actually confusing the means with the end? I believe that “romance,” at its core, is an endless process that has become an end in itself.
Even if technology were to infinitely “hack” our lives, wouldn’t this sense of “casualness” and “wastefulness” remain untouched? As we discussed this, the keywords “casualness” and “wastefulness” emerged as antonyms to “optimization.”Dating app algorithms evolve to eliminate waste in order to calculate “the right match for you.” However, those moments when we “let our guard down” or “take things lightly” cannot be targeted for elimination. This is because, even as we constantly seek efficiency, these moments—as part of the process or as its margins—will always continue to exist.
The conversation also turned to online dating before the era of dating apps. On traditional bulletin-board-style dating sites, users actively sought to “hack” the technology of the internet itself to create spaces for connection.On Twitter, there used to be users who posted largely trivial tweets like “Taking a bath” or “I’m hungry,” but it’s said that this has become less common recently. As this example illustrates, the internet’s existence does not inherently symbolize the creepiness of online matchmaking. Rather, within already established communities, the determination of internet users to “bricolage” technology seemed to be actively constructing a sense of reality.
Meeting people, building relationships from scratch, and persisting without giving up—even when it takes a mental and physical toll—is possible regardless of the capabilities of technology. ——The new “real” is about never giving up.——
At this point, we can return to the question posed at the beginning: Can the “romantic relationship”—a relationship between two people—be connected to the public sphere or to activism? Romance itself is a relationship confined to the smallest unit of “me” and “you,” closed off from the outside world. That is precisely why, on its own, it cannot become activism.However, the act of continuously weaving a single relationship brings into sharp relief both our disconnection from and our connection to the world around us. For this reason, I came to believe that existing with greater intensity connects us to a form of gentle activism.
Yet, the closer a relationship becomes, the more it can sometimes entail a psychological burden. Igata and Kagami pointed out that architecture is topography and is, by definition, immovable; through this discussion, I similarly felt anew that “the other” is inviolable.Just as in the novel *Harmony* , which depicts a world where suffering has been eliminated by a system, a world where political resistance can only be expressed through the violence of riots likely arises when we expand the realm of immovable entities and give up on confronting them.
That is precisely why I feel it might be okay to have a little more variation. It is like a light-hearted back-and-forth: writing a “love letter,” weaving the relationship between “you and me,” and then returning to the public sphere once more.
Credit
Related Works
